JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J - The petitioner assails the order of conviction under Section 323, Indian Penal Code, and sentence of R.I. for one month passed by the appellate Court. The trial Court had convicted the petitioner under Sections 323 and 325, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one month and one year respectively. The appellate Court has set aside the order of conviction and sentence in respect of the offence under Section 325, Indian Penal Code. 2. At the time of admission, notice of enhancement had been issued and as such the revision is being disposed of as if it is an appeal by re-scanning the entire evidence on record. 3. The prosecution case is as follows: P.W.1, the informant, and P.W.2, his brother, were returning from police station. On the way at about 4.30 p.m. on 7.11, 1883, P.W.2 was attacked by the petitioner and two other accused persons who have been acquitted by the trial Court. When the informant tried to intervene he was also assaulted. On these allegations, charge sheet was submitted under Sections 341 and 325 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, against the three accused persons. The trial Court relying upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 as corroborated by P.W.3 and the evidence of the doctor (P.W.6) found the petitioner guilty under Sections 323 and 325, Indian Penal Code, but acquitted the other two accused persons on the ground that P.W.3, the independent witness, had not specifically implicated them. As already indicated, in appeal, the conviction and sentence under Sections 325 were set aside and the conviction under Section 323, Indian Penal Code, has been confirmed. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has taken us through the entire evidence on record. It is contended that in view of the various discrepancies in the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3, the order of conviction cannot be sustained. It is further submitted that two other accused persons having been acquitted, the self-same evidence should not have been accepted to record a finding of guilt so far as the petitioner is concerned. The learned counsel appearing for the State has supported the order of conviction. 5. It is true that on the basis of the self-same evidence, the other accused persons have been acquitted by the trial Court. The learned counsel appearing for the State has supported the order of conviction. 5. It is true that on the basis of the self-same evidence, the other accused persons have been acquitted by the trial Court. However, the trial Court has given a specific reason that the two other accused persons had not been specifically implicated by P.W.3, the independent witness. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that P.W.3 cannot be considered to be an independent witness, as he is a relation of P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W.3 has specifically denied the suggestion that he is a relation of P.Ws.1 and 2. The evidence of D.W.1,. who was, in fact, a co-accused, but acquitted later on does not categorically indicate anything about the nature of relationship between P.W.3 on the one hand and P.W.2 on the other. Besides, even assuming that P.W.3 is a relation, merely on that score, the sworn testimony cannot be discarded specially when the evidence receives corroboration from the evidence of the doctor who had examined P.Ws.1 and 2 who had sustained injuries in course of the incident. 6. It is true that the evidence discloses that there were some other persons present at the time of occurrence, but as stated by P.W.1 he could not mark as to who the other persons were, as he was suddenly assaulted. This explanation of P.W.1 appears to be correct and as such merely because some other persons present at the spot had not been examined, the entire prosecution case cannot be discarded. 7. It has been vehemently contended that the version disclosed in Court by P.W.1 differs from the version given by the F.I.R. lodged by P.W.1 himself. Unfortunately for the petitioner, attention of P.W.1 has not been specifically drawn to his previous statement as contained in the F.I.R., as required under Section 145 of the Evidence Act. In the absence of any such specific question to P.W.1 regarding the alleged contradiction in the F.I.R. and the statement in Court, it is difficult to accept such contention which appears to have been raised for the first time in this criminal revision. I have also compared the statement contained in F.I.R. as well as the statement of P.W.1 and the so called contradiction appears to be quite minor in nature. 8. I have also compared the statement contained in F.I.R. as well as the statement of P.W.1 and the so called contradiction appears to be quite minor in nature. 8. It is submitted that since P.Ws.1 and 2 are related to the landlord of the accused, a false case has been foisted. However, co-accused Rameswar Sharma who has been acquitted and who claims to be a tenant of Ramachandra Sharma, the relation of P.Ws. 1 and 2, has himself admitted in his deposition as D.W. 1 that the landlord had no enmity with him. Since the landlord did not have any enmity with the accused persons including the acquitted accused, it cannot be accepted that the relations of the landlord have falsely filed this case. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any reason to disturb the finding of guilt recorded by the appellate Court. 9. Coming to the question of sentence, it appears that the occurrence had taken place in the year 1983. About 14 years have elapsed in the meantime. In such view of the matter, I think instead of imposing substantive sentence of imprisonment at this distant point of time, a sentence of fine will meet the ends of justice. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I consider that fine of Rs. 1,000/- will amply serve the purpose. 10. Accordingly, while maintaining the order of conviction, I alter the sentence of imprisonment to one of fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment whereof, the petitioner is directed to undergo R.I. for three months. Out of the fine amount realised, a sum of Rs. 300/- each should be paid to P.Ws. 1 and 2, injured persons. 11. Subject to the aforesaid modification, this criminal revision is dismissed. Notice of enhancement of sentence is discharged. Final Result : Dismissed