Judgment ( 1 ) THIS judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 629/80 and Criminal Revision Petition No. 63/81. ( 2 ) THE appeal has been preferred by Bhup Singh, Dhanpat and Ram Singh, who were convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar and sentenced as follows : ( 3 ) THE revision petition has been preferred by one Prithvi Raj who had lodged report at the Police Station Berani. District Sriganga Nagar and who is dis-satisfied with the judgment of the learned Court below. It is pertinent to mention here that Surjit and Banwari had also faced trial but the learned Addl. Sessions Judge passed an order of acquittal qua them. The revision petitioner wants that they should also be punished. ( 4 ) BRIEFLY stated facts of the case are that Prithvi Raj. P. W. 2 filed First Information Report Ex. 1 on 14-2-1978 to the effect that Hanuman Vishnoi was a distant uncle of him. When Panchayat Elections were held one Dhanpat contested but he was defeated by Hanuman. During the Panchayat Elections, Prithivi Raj did not support Dhanpat, therefore, a previous enmity existed. In the night of 14-2-1978, Raja Ram, P. W. 1, Bhagat Ram, P. W. 3, Mana Ram, P. W. 7 were engaged in some discussion at the house of Hanuman. At about 11 Oclock a noise was heard and Hanuman came out of the house and saw that Bhup Singh, Dhanpat, Ram Singh, Surjit and Banwari were present in the chowk. Dhanpat and Bhup Singh were armed with guns and rest of the persons were armed with lathis. They were abusing and were saying that the persons who did not vote in favour of their candidate, they would be killed. When objected to. Ram Singh inflicted a lathi blow on the right hand of Prithvi Raj. Mana Rams mother Smt. Rami came out of her house and enquired about Mana Ram then Bhup Singh fired towards her. The lady fell down. Again a fire was heard and Bhagat Ram was injured. The door of the house was closed and the appellants went on firing and later on went away. 4. A. Then Prithvi Raj went to the house of Amar Singh and asked for arranging a Jeep. The lady fell down. Again a fire was heard and Bhagat Ram was injured. The door of the house was closed and the appellants went on firing and later on went away. 4. A. Then Prithvi Raj went to the house of Amar Singh and asked for arranging a Jeep. The injured person were taken to hospital at Bhadra and report was lodged at the Police Station Hirani whereupon a case under Sections 307, 148, 149, 325, I. P. C. and 27 Arms Act was registered. ( 5 ) RAM Dayal, the SHO started investigation and prepared site plan Ex. P2. He recovered cartridges and pellets and also recorded statements of Prithvi Raj, Bhagat Ram, Chhotu Ram, Amar Singh. Dr. Vijay Kumar Batra examined Smt. Rami and found a gun shot wound. On 14-2-1978 Raja Ram was examined by Dr. Vijay Kumar Batra and report Ex. P6 was prepared which mentions that there was an oval gun shot wound. On the same day, Dr. Batra also examined Prithvi Raj and prepared Ex. P4. X-ray of Prithvi Raj was also taken and it was found that injury No. 1 was serious as there was a fracture. Prithvi Raj had two injuries as per report Ex. P7. Dr. Vijay Kumar Batra also examined Bhagat Ram and prepared Ex. P8. There was an injury on the right palm of injured Bhagat Ram. ( 6 ) AFTER the investigation, challan was presented and the learned Additional Sessions judge tried the accused appellants as well as other assailants. He convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated above. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants contended that the incident took place because of enmity, which is a double-edged weapon and that the witnesses are relations to each other. He does not challenge the conviction part of the judgment but he contends that the matter is very old one and that, the appellants besides having undergone mental stress, have heavily suffered economically. He asserted that a sword of democles is hanging over their heads for the last 18 years. ( 8 ) LEARNED Public Prosecutor has contended that too much lenient view should not be taken. He admitted that, of course, the matter is very old. ( 9 ) LEARNED trial Court carne to the conclusion that Dhanpat and Bhoop Sing committed offences under Section 324, I. P. C. as the injuries were simple. ( 8 ) LEARNED Public Prosecutor has contended that too much lenient view should not be taken. He admitted that, of course, the matter is very old. ( 9 ) LEARNED trial Court carne to the conclusion that Dhanpat and Bhoop Sing committed offences under Section 324, I. P. C. as the injuries were simple. A fire-arm was recovered from Boop Singh which was un-licensed. The learned Court below reached to the conclusion that it was Bhoop Singh who inflicted injuries to Smt. Rami. ( 10 ) I am of the view that the learned counsel for the appellant has rightly not challenged his conviction. The Court below after discussing the evidence before it, reached to the conclusion that injury was inflicted to abdomen of Raja Ram by Dhanpat who caused it by a fire-arm. So far as Ram Singh is concerned, injury was inflicted by this appellant on the right hand of Prithvi Raj. It resulted into fracture of one of his fingers, which is supported by medical evidence. In view of the clinching evidence of the prosecution on record, learned counsel for the appellant has rightly not challenged their conviction. His only prayer is that the appellants were punished for six months imprisonment and fine and they have already undergone imprisonment for quite some time. Learned counsel relied upon decision in Arjun v. State of Rajasthan, 1976 Cri LJ 544 and urged that no useful purpose will be served by sending the accused appellants back to jail after such a long time. I agree. ( 11 ) FROM the record I find that Bhoop Singh has undergone imprisonment for 69 days, Dhanpat for 47 days and Ram Singh for 21 days. ( 12 ) CONSEQUENTLY, I partly allow the appeal (No. 629/80) and while maintaining conviction of the accused appellants, reduce their sentence to the period already undergone. Sentence of fine is maintained. ( 13 ) SO far as revision petition filed by Prithvi Raj (No. 63/81) is concerned, the established law is that it is a rare of the rarest cases that a private persons revision is allowed against acquittal. I have gone through the judgment impugned of the Court below, there is no sufficient reason to interfere so far as acquittal of Banwari and Surjit is concerned. There appears no reasons to enhance sentence of appellants. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed.