JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed under section 374 Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment and order dated 31.7.97 made in Sessions Case No. 85/96 (110/96) by Spl. Judge ST/SC (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Sawaimadhopur. By his impugned judgment and order the learned Trial Judge held the appellant guilty of the offence under section 326 IPC, convicted him as such and sentenced him to R.l: for 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- or in-case of default to undergo further R.l. for six months. 2. The case of the prosecution was that on 17.7.96 at about 7.30 RM. when PW/1 Girdhari and PW/2 Smt. Kaila Devi, alongwith their two years aged daughter Kumari Kalawati were sitting at their house, the appellant and several others, all duly armed with deadly weapons like Lathies, Farsi, Knife etc. reached there and opened an assault on the prosecution witnesses. When PW/3 Leelawati, PW/4 Dropdi, PW/5 Bhagwanti, PW/6 Hetoo and others in the locality tried to intervene, the appellant and his other colleagues be laboured them also. 3. The incident was reported to the police at Mantown, Sawaimadhopur within half an hour of the incident by PW/1 Girdhari. A case for offences U/ss. 147, 149, 324, 452 IPC was registered against the present appellant and Raju (absconder), Munna and 10-15 others. In the course of investigation it was found that an injury with sharp edged weapon was caused to Kumari Kalwati by the present appellant and such injury was likely to cause for death in the ordinary course of nature. The appellant, Munna, Raju and Lallu were, therefore, charge-sheeted for offences committed U/ss. 147, 307 and in the alternative under Section 307/149 and 323 IPC. On trial the learned trial Judge held that the appellant had committed an offence punishable under Section 326 IPC against Kumari Kalawati. He convicted and sentenced the appellant accordingly. A report under section 299 Cr.RC. had been filed against Raju co-accused. He is reported to be still at large. Munna and Lallu co-accused were however acquitted. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that all the other eye witnesses of the occurrence namely PW/3 Leelawati, PW/4 Dropdi and PW/5 Bhagwanti had turned hostile at the trial of the appellant and they did not support the prosecution case. He is reported to be still at large. Munna and Lallu co-accused were however acquitted. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that all the other eye witnesses of the occurrence namely PW/3 Leelawati, PW/4 Dropdi and PW/5 Bhagwanti had turned hostile at the trial of the appellant and they did not support the prosecution case. It was submitted that the testimony of PW/1 Girdhari and PW/2 Kailadevi was highly partial as they were the related and interested persons and, therefore, no reliance should be placed on such interested evidence. It was further submitted that even if the evidence led by those two witnesses is accepted then it is not established that the present appellant was the author of the injuries caused to Kumari Kalawati. It was thus submitted that the appellant should be extended benefit of doubt in the present case. 5. In the alternative it was submitted that since the appellant has already undergone major part of his sentence, his sentence be reduced to the period already undergone by him. It was also submitted that the appellant be extended the benefit of provision of Probation of Offender Act. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Rajesh Goswami, the learned Public Prosecutor, supporting the impugned judgment and order, submitted that it was fully proved by the testimony of PW/2 Girdhari and PW/2 Kailadevi that the present appellant had caused a grievous hurt with a knife to Kumari Kalawati who was simply a child of about 2 years. The learned RR, therefore, urged that no leniency in sentence should be shown to the present appellant in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7. On going through the material available on the record of the lower court, I entertain no doubt at all that during the early hours of the night of 17.7.96 grievous hurt with sharp edged weapon was caused to Kumari Kalawati, aged about 2 years. On going through the statement of PW/1 Girdhari, PW/2 Kailadevi, PW/3 Leelawati, PW/4 Dropdi, PW/5 Bhagwanti and PW/6 Hetoo, I find that an occurrence of the nature stated by the prosecution had certainly taken place at the relevant time and place and in the manner stated by the witnesses. On going through the statement of PW/1 Girdhari, PW/2 Kailadevi, PW/3 Leelawati, PW/4 Dropdi, PW/5 Bhagwanti and PW/6 Hetoo, I find that an occurrence of the nature stated by the prosecution had certainly taken place at the relevant time and place and in the manner stated by the witnesses. The substance of their testimony was that the present appellant alongwith a large number of other persons had gone to the house of the PW/1 Girdhari and started beating the persons present there. The unlawful assembly had even broken mirror and electronic items and damaged other property of the prosecution witnesses. Undoubtedly Leelawati, Dropdi and Bhagwanti were declared hostile but they had also supported the above facts. They had further stated that in the course of the said incident Kumari kalawati had sustained grievous hurt on her face with sharp edged weapon. On being examined PW/7 Dr. Pritam Chand Gupta had found an incised wound 3.5 cm.x2 cm.x41 cm. placed on the right cheek of the child, cutting her right lower jaw. It was, therefore, fully proved that in the course of the said incident a grievous hurt with sharp edged weapon had certainly been caused by one of the members of the unlawful assembly. 8. In so far as the question of the appellant being the author of the sole injury caused to Kumari Kalawati is concerned PW/1 Girdhari and PW/2 Kailadevi and specifically stated that the appellant was armed with a knife and he caused injury to Kumari Kalawati. Both these witnesses are undoubtedly parents of the child but that can hardly be a good ground to reject their testimony on this point. Their presence at that point of time at their house can hardly be doubted. It was the month of July and the occurrence had taken place at about 7 or 7.30 PM. when sunshine was still there. Both these witnesses could have certainly identified the author of the injury caused to their child. I, therefore, feel satisfied that the prosecution had successfully proved the commission of an offence under section 326 IPC by the present appellant against Kumari Kalawati. The appellant has, therefore, rightly been convicted of the said offence by the learned trial court. 9. Now so far as the question of sentence to the appellant is concerned, I find that the appellant has already undergone almost three years of his sentence. The appellant has, therefore, rightly been convicted of the said offence by the learned trial court. 9. Now so far as the question of sentence to the appellant is concerned, I find that the appellant has already undergone almost three years of his sentence. Kumari Kalawati was caused only one injury, which no doubt was a grievous one. The appellant who was then aged about 20-21 years is not stated to have caused any other injury either to Kumari Kalawati or to any other member of her family. No doubt his act of causing injury with sharp edged weapons to an innocent child can not be appreciated at all, yet looking to the fact that for some reasons or cause members of assailant party were annoyed and agitated and, therefore, they had gone to the house of Girdhari and opened an assault on his family. The present appellant might have acted more enthusiastically in exhibiting violent behaviour. I am of the opinion that his sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone subject to increase in the amount of fine. 10. In the result, the judgment and order of the conviction of the appellant for offence under section 326 IPC are hereby sustained. The substantive sentence of four years awarded to him is hereby reduced to the period already undergone but the fine of Rs. 1000/- is increased to Rs. 7,000/- with no increase in sentence for default thereof. The appellant shall be released from jail as and when he deposits the aforesaid amount of Rs. 7,000/-. In-case, he does not deposit the said amount, this appeal shall be deemed to have been dismissed. 11. If the amount of fine is deposited by the appellant, the same shall be paid to PW/1 Girdhari by way of compensation. 12. With the above modification in the impugned judgment and order this appeal stands disposed of. *******