P. K. JAIN, J. Heard Sri Sudhakar Pandey, learned Counsel for the revision ists and the learned A. G. A. 2. This revision is being finally dis posed of at the admission stage with the consent of the parties. 3. Revisionists Chandresh and Smt. Pushpa Devi (wife of Chandresh revision ist) were convicted by the trial Court for offences under Sections 323 and 324, IPC respectively. Revisionists Chandresh was setnenced to imprisonment for 6 months SI and pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under Sec tion 323, IPC and Smt. Pushpa Devi, the revisionist was also sentenced under Sec tion 324, IPC SI for 6 months and pay fine of Rs, 500/ -. In defualt of payment of fine both of them- were ordered to undergo further SI for 15 days each. 4. Appeal preferred by them was dismissed by Sessions Judge, Budaun vide judgment and order, dated 16-8-97. 5. The learned Counsel for the revi sionists contends that the revisionists had also sustained injuries in the said incident and there were cross versions of the inci dent. The trial Court as well as appellate Court have not taken into consideration the injuries found on the person of the revisionists. It is further contended that the incident occurred between brothers and their wives and considering the nature of the injuries the punishment awarded is too severe. 6. So far as the first contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionists is con cerned they do not appear to have taken a plea that they sustained injuries in the same incident as is evident from their statements under Section 313, Cr. P. C. as described by the trial court in its judgment. The accused also did not adduce any de fence evidence. Learned counsel contends that copies of the medical examiantion report were filed. Mere filing of the copies of the medical examiantion report was not enough unless the same were proved by examining the doctor or by being admitted by the prosecution. Besides this, the defence was required to plead or atleast by cross-examination create probability that the injuries sustained by the accused per sons were sustained in the same- incident in which the prosecution party sustaiaed injuries. In the absence of any such evi dence the revisionist can not take advan tage of any medical report filed by them. Besides this, the defence was required to plead or atleast by cross-examination create probability that the injuries sustained by the accused per sons were sustained in the same- incident in which the prosecution party sustaiaed injuries. In the absence of any such evi dence the revisionist can not take advan tage of any medical report filed by them. Therefore, there is no substance in the first contention of the learned counsel for the revisionists. 7. As regards the second contention it is not disputed that both the parties are. closely related and the dispute was with regard to the partition of the property;. II appears that there was some altercation between the ladies of the two houses in which the husband of the revisionist Smt. Pushpa Devi also participated. Smt. Pushpa Devi is said to have made teeth bite on the nipple of Smt. Omwati Devi. The injury was however, simple in nature. Besides this, the incident occurred in the year, 1990 and since there after there has been no untoward incident between the parties. In these circumstances, the sen tence awarded by the court below appears to be somewhat excessive. Learned counsel for the revisionists was submitted that in case the sentence of fine is awarded the revisionist shall not treat the same as en hancement in punishment. The revision ists were taken into custody on 16-8-97 when the appeal was dismissed and since then they are in jail. They have already suffered imprisonment for more than 1 month. In my view, the period of impris onment already undergone and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each shall meet the ends of justice. 8. The revision is partly allowed. Conviction of revisionists Chandresh un der Section 323, IPC and Smt Pushpa Devi is maintained. Sentence awarded by the Court below is, however, modified and both the revisionists are sentenced to un dergo imprisonment for the period they have already been in jail and pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each. In default of payment of fine they will further suffer imprisonment for 1 month. 9. Let a certified copy of this order be supplied to the learned Counsel for the revisionists on payment of usual charges within 24 hours. Revision parity allowed. .