N. S. GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a criminal revision against the judgement and order dated 7-2-83 passed by Sri K. N. Ojha, the then IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Budaun in Criminal Appeal No. 248 of 1981 thereby convicting and sentencing the applicants u/s. 325/34, IPC to pay fine of Rs. 400. 00 by each and under Section 323/34, IPC to pay a fine of Rs. 200. 00 in default to payment of fine within 30 days, from the date of passing the order by the lower appellate Court, to undergo 4 months R. I under Section 325/34 IPC and 2 months R. I under Section 323/34 IPC, arising out of the criminal case No. 31 of 1981 - State v. Gendan Lal, under Sections 323/34/325/34, 506 IPC, police station Sahaswan, district Budaun in which the applicants were convicted and sentenced, to undergo one and half years R. I. under Section 325/34 IPC and 6 months RI u/s. 323/34 IPC. ( 2 ) THE prosecution claimed that the injured Kundan PW-1 and his wife Smt. Savita PW-2 were residents of village Baharipur P. S. Sahaswan, district Budaun. The accused revisionists were also residents of the same village. There was some dispute on point of land in between the family member of the accused revisionists and the complainant Kundan. On 17-10-1980 at about 10 p. m. , the accused revisionist came to the residence of the complainant. They were armed with lathis. They caused following injuries on the person of Kundan and his wife Smt. Savita. Injuries of Kundan1. Abrasion 3 cm x 1 cm on the right of side of head, 9 cm above right ear. 2. Abrasion 1 cm x 0. 5 cm on outer side of left thumb in middle. ( 3 ) CONTUSION 4 cm x 2. 05 cm on right cheek. Injuries of Smt. Savita. 1. Contusion 8 cm x 2 cm on outer side of right upper arm 10 cm below shoulder with swelling around 10 cm x 10 cm. 2. Abrasion 3 cm x 1 cm on front of left knee. 3. Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm on front of right knee. At the trial, Kundan PW-1 and his wife Smt. Savita (both injured) were examined as PW-1 and PW-2 Phool Singh, who was said to be an eye witness of the occurrence was examined as PW-3. 3. 2. Abrasion 3 cm x 1 cm on front of left knee. 3. Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm on front of right knee. At the trial, Kundan PW-1 and his wife Smt. Savita (both injured) were examined as PW-1 and PW-2 Phool Singh, who was said to be an eye witness of the occurrence was examined as PW-3. 3. Learned Trial Magistrate believing the version of the prosecution, convicted and sentenced the accused revisionists under Section 323/34, IPC to undergo RI for a period of 6 months and under Section 325/34 IPC to undergo one and half years RI each. On appeal, Sri K. N. Ojha, the then IVth Additional Sessions Judge maintained the conviction of the accused revisionist but reduced their sentences till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 400. 00 each under S. 325, IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 200. 00 each under Section 323, IPC. Learned Sessions Judge, Budaun directed that in case fine was not paid within 30 days, each accused revisionist shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 4 months under Section 325, IPC and simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months under Section 323, IPC. The accused revisionists feeling aggrieved by the said order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Budaun have come up in revision before this Court. ( 4 ) I have heard Sri V. C. Katiyar, learned counsel for the revisionist Sri V. B. Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State; considered their contentions and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 5 ) IT was argued by the learned counsel for the revisionists that on the point of light there was conflict between the statement of Phool Singh PW 3 an independent eye witness of the occurrence and Investigating Officer Ram Pal PW-7. It was argued that there was no light on the spot; the occurrence had taken place at about 10 p. m. The learned Court below grossly erred in convicting and sentencing the accused revisionist. It was argued that there was no mention of lantern in the first information report or site plan and the injury found on the person of the injured Kundan and Savita were all abrasions. They were superficial injuries. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Budaun, therefore, grossly erred in sustaining the conviction of theaccused revisionist. It was argued that there was no mention of lantern in the first information report or site plan and the injury found on the person of the injured Kundan and Savita were all abrasions. They were superficial injuries. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Budaun, therefore, grossly erred in sustaining the conviction of theaccused revisionist. ( 6 ) I am unable to agree with the contention raised by the revisionists. I find from the record of the case that PW-1 Kundan and his wife Smt. Savita in their statements before the Court below have stated to have sustained injuries, which were found on their person as stated above. The fact that the injuries on the person of the Kundan PW-1 and Smt. Savita could have been caused at the day and time of the occurrence was well stated before the Court below by Dr. R. C. Arya. I am, therefore, of the opinion that there was no perversity, illegality or impropriety in the approach of the learned Sessions Judge, Budaun in sustaining the finding of conviction recorded by the learned Magistrate, Budaun. ( 7 ) COMING to the point of sentence, I find that the learned Sessions Judge, Budaun himself has taken a lenient view in reducing the sentence of imprisonment till rising of the Court and substituting the same by means of fine of Rs. 200. 00 each under Section 323 IPC and Rs. 400. 00 each under Section 325 IPC. The amount of fine inflicted against the accused revisionist appear to be correct, reasonable and proper which warrants no interference by this Court. ( 8 ) IN the result, revision has got no force. It is hereby dismissed. Revision dismissed. .