JUDGMENT 1. - In the present case, the occurrence alleged to have been taken place on 19-6-1980 and an FIR Ex. P./2 was lodged on 20-8-1980 against seven accused-persons namely ; Bhanwara, Mohan, Roopa, Kishna, Mst. Sohani, Mst. Gopi and Mst. Samma. On the basis of FIR (Ex.P./2), the investigation commenced. During course of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against accused Bhanwara, Roopa, Kislina, Mohan and against rest of three ladies, named above, final report was submitted. 2. Learned trial Court framed charges against the aforesaid four accused-persons under Sections 323 and 342, I.P.C. During trial, the accused-persons denied the charges and claimed trial. 3. In support of the prosecution story, the prosecution examined PW 1 Dr. Anandilal, PW 2 Mohan, PW 3 Tulsa, PW 4 Sawa, PW 5 Shoorveer Singh, PW 6 Smt. Sita and PW 7 Nathu. In support of the defence, the accused examined DW 1 Hem Raj. 4. After hearing learned Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the accused-petitioners, learned trial court recorded the finding of guilt against the aforesaid four accused- persons under Sections 323 and 342, IPC and convicted and sentenced them to suffer one month's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days R.I. on each count. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 5. Aggrieved against the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the revisionists preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajsamand who after hearing learned counsel for the accused-petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor for the State, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused-petitioners by the learned trial Court on 11-10-1984. 6. Aggrieved against the dismissal of their appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajsamand on 1-5-1985, the present revisionists filed the instant revision petition before this Court. 7. I have heard Mr. Sunil Mehta holding the brief of Mr. DS. Sisodia, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners and Mr. D.R. Bohra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and have gone through the concurrent finding of guilt recorded by the trial Court on 11-10-1984 and learned Appellant Court on 1-5-1985. 8. A close scrutiny of the finding of guilt recorded by both the courts-below appears to me eminently just and proper and based on analytical discussion of oral and documentary evidence on record. 8. A close scrutiny of the finding of guilt recorded by both the courts-below appears to me eminently just and proper and based on analytical discussion of oral and documentary evidence on record. The learned trial court as well as learned Appellate Court have given cogent and convincing reasons to arrive at a correct conclusion. On the question of sentence, learned counsel for the petitioners convicted me that it requires re-consideration. 9. I have given my thoughtful consideration on the question of sentence awarded by the courts-below. In the present case, the occurrence alleged to have taken place on 19-6-1980 and a prolonged litigation from 14 years is continuing in various courts. As a matter of fact, the present revisionists are entitled for speedy trial as contemplated under Article 21 of the Constitution of India but because of judicial system prevailing in this country, this matter could not be decided earlier. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention towards detention of the accused-petitioners in judicial custody for seven days. Mr. Mehta learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the aforesaid sentence may be taken to be sufficient in the interest of justice. According to me, there is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the accused-petitioners. The instant revision petition was filed on 4-5-1985 before this Court and after expiry of more than 9 years, I do not think it proper to send the accused-petitioners in jail to serve out the remaining sentence awarded by the courts-below. The accused-petitioners have not contributed in delaying the decision of the present revision petition. 10. In the present set of circumstances, seven days imprisonment already undergone by the accused-petitioners are sufficient to meet the ends of justice. However, in the present case, a peace living citizen like Mohan (injured) was beaten without any proaction On his part. The accused-persons have taken the law in their hands, therefore, in the interest of justice, I consider it proper to enhance the fine from Rs. 50/- to Rs. 150/- on each count and reduce the sentence of the accused-petitioners from one month's R.I. to 7 days imprisonment as awarded by the courts- below under Sections 323 and 342, IPC. 11. The accused-persons have taken the law in their hands, therefore, in the interest of justice, I consider it proper to enhance the fine from Rs. 50/- to Rs. 150/- on each count and reduce the sentence of the accused-petitioners from one month's R.I. to 7 days imprisonment as awarded by the courts- below under Sections 323 and 342, IPC. 11. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the conviction recorded by the learned trial Judge under Sections 323 and 342, IPC is hereby affirmed but sentence of one month's R.I. under both the counts is reduced to seven days imprisonment already undergone for both the counts and fine of Rs. 50/-imposed by the trial court on each count is hereby enhanced to Rs. 150/- on each counts. Thus, out of Rs. 1200/- as fine imposed on the present accused-petitioners i.e. Rs. 300/- each petitioner on both the counts, Rs. 1000/-be given to the injured Mohan and rest of the amount will be deposited in usual manner. 12. With the above modifications, the revision petition is partly allowed on the question of sentence and on imposition of fine as stated in the preceding paragraphs. Learned counsel for the petitioners prays and allowed three months to deposit the fine in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Kumbhalgarh Dist. Udaipur at present District Rajsamand. Out of deposit of Rs. 1200/- by the accused-petitioners as fine, the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Kumbhalgarh is directed to pay Rs. 1000/- to the complainant Mohan (injured) as compensation to him and rest of the amount would be deposited in usual manner.Revision partly allowed. *******