JUDGMENT Petitioners Natthusingh, Chatursingh and Ramrajasingh stand convicted under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, with sentences of Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 200/- each. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chhatarpur, on a close scrutiny of the evidence, led by the prosecution, found the petitioners guilty of causing grevious hurt to complainant Sahab Singh on 27.1.85 and, therefore, vide judgment dated 16.10.89 convicted and sentenced the petitioners as mentioned above. The petitioner's conviction and sentences stand affirmed by the Appellate Court, vide impugned judgment dated 29.6.92, passed by Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 112/90. On a close scrutiny of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in general and of PW 1 Sahab Singh and PW 2 Premkunwar, the injured witness, in particular, this Court is satisfied that the Courts below have rightly held the petitioners guilty of causing grevious hurt to Sahab Singh. Therefore, petitioner's conviction, u/s 325 of the IPC, does not call for any interference in this revision petition. Shri Tiwari, the learned counsel for the petitioners, pleaded for a lenient view in the matter of sentence, as a period of more than 13 years has already elapsed since the commission of the offence in the year 1985; the petitioners and the injured persons are closely related to each other; even according to the prosecution the incident of assault on Sahab Singh and Prem Kunwar had taken place all of a sudden on a very petty dispute about the taking away of the cut wood of the tree standing in the jointly owned field of the petitioners and complainant Sahab Singh; petitioner No.1 Natthusingh is an old man aged about 75 years; petitioner No.2 Chatursingh and petitioner No.3 Ramrajasingh were young boys aged about 20 years at the time of the commission of the offence; after the dismissal of their appeal all the three petitioners have already remained in jail for about 10 days each. The mitigating circumstances, pointed out here-in-above are very much borne out from the evidence on record. The petitioners and injured persons Sahab Singh and Prem Kunwar are close relatives. From the prosecution case itself it is apparent that injured Sahab Singh came to sustain injuries, at the hands of his own relatives i.e. the petitioners, during an altercation between them over sharing the cut wood of the tree standing in their field. The petitioners and injured persons Sahab Singh and Prem Kunwar are close relatives. From the prosecution case itself it is apparent that injured Sahab Singh came to sustain injuries, at the hands of his own relatives i.e. the petitioners, during an altercation between them over sharing the cut wood of the tree standing in their field. From the charge-sheet, filed by the police, it is apparent that petitioners Chatursingh and Ramrajasingh were shown to be aged about 22 years and 19 years respectively. Petitioner Natthusingh, during his examination u/s 313 CrPC, in the year 1989, was estimated by the trial Court to be of 60 years of age. As such now he is aged about 70 years. The records further reveals that the petitioners, after the dismissal of their appeal, were sent to jail on 29.6.92 and were thereafter released on bail on 10.7.92 in pursuance to the order of grant of bail dated 7.7.92. Thus, all the three petitioners had already remained in jail for more than 10 days each. It is evident from the order sheet dated 16.10.89 that all the three petitioners had already deposited the entire amount of fine awarded by the Courts below. On a cumulative consideration of the above mentioned broad features of the case and the nature and manner of the incident and the background of relationship between the petitioners and injured Sahab Singh, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioners now back to jail for serving out the balance of the sentence, awarded by the Courts below, at this distance of time after more than a decade of the commission of the offence. The jail sentence, already undergone by the petitioners, in the opinion of this Court, alongwith the sentence of fine, awarded by the Courts below, would be the sufficient punishment and would meet the ends of justice. For the foregoing reasons the revision petition is allowed in part. Petitioner's conviction u/s 325 of the IPC, and sentence of fine of Rs. 200/- each are hereby affirmed. The jail sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year, awarded by the Courts below, for the reasons mentioned here-in-above, is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioners. Petitioners Natthusingh, Chatursingh and Ramrajasingh are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged.