JUDGMENT - VISHNU SAHAI, J.:---Heard Mr. Nitin Pradhan for petitioner (original complainant), Mr. A.Y. Sakhare for respondents 1 to 4 (original accused) and Mr. Dinesh Adsule, A.P.P. for respondent No. 5, the State of Maharashtra, Rule. By consent rule made returnable forthwith. 2. The prayer in this Criminal Revision application which has been preferred by the original complainant Bapurao Shankar Rokade is that the judgment and order dated 8-10-1998 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, in Criminal Appeal No. 104/94, reducing the sentence of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 for offences punishable under sections 324 r.w. 34 I.P.C. and 325 r.w. 34 I.P.C. till rising of the Court and imposing some fine in lieu thereof be set aside and the judgment and order dt. 29-7-1994 passed by the J.M.F.C., Tasgaon, in Regular Criminal Case No. 211/92 sentencing the said respondents to 6 months each and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days each for the offence punishable under sections 324 r.w. 34 I.P.C. and 1 year's R.I. each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer S.I. for 2 months each for the offence punishable under sections 325 r.w. 34 I.P.C. be restored. 3. The concurrent finding of the courts below is that on 17-11-1992 at about 8.25 p.m. when the original complainant Bapurao Shankar Rokade on his way back from Tasgaon was proceeding for his house and had reached near Laxmi Temple situated in Laxmi Chowk, Rajapur, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 viz. Tukaram Devappa Gade and Vishnu Bhimrao Gade assaulted him on his head by means of a stone and respondents 3 and 4 viz. Chandrakant Tukaram Gade and Bhimrao Maruti Gade assaulted him by fists and kicks and as a consequence of the said assault the original complainant received severe injuries on his head, forehead, back and other parts of his body. 4. I have examined the said concurrent finding and I find that not only is it correct in view of the prompt F.I.R. which was lodged on the same day at 9.15 p.m. by the original complainant but also on account of his credible ocular account, his disclosure of incident immediately after the incident to Manohar P.W. 5 and his son Vikas P.W. 6 and the medical evidence. The medical evidence shows 4 contused lacerated wounds on vital parts of the body of original complainant which were accompanied by five fractures, viz., fracture of transverse process of L3, L4, L5 vertebral body on the left side and fracture of transverse process of L2, L3 on right side. 5. Having perused the impugned judgments I am satisfied that the concurrent finding of fact referred to above is based on good evidence and does not warrant any interference. I am also satisfied that the sentence imposed on respondents No. 1 to 4 by the Appellate Court is manifestly inadequate and warrants to be enhanced in view of the heartless manner in which they assaulted the complainant. 6. The question is whether I should make the rule absolute in terms of the prayer contained in the memo of revision. That obviously would mean restoring the original substantive sentences of the four respondents. Having anxiously reflected over the feasibility of doing so I find that would not be conducive in the interest of justice. The object in imposing a substantive sentence is its deterrent impact. In the instant case if I restore the substantive sentence of the respondents 1 to 4 it would be asking them to cumulatively serve a substantive sentence of one year on both the counts. That sentence in my view obviously would not have any deterrent effect. On the converse sending the said respondents to jail to serve it would result in uprooting them from the main-stream of life. Apart from this, excepting the vicarious satisfaction that his assailants are in jail for a short time, the original complainant would not gain anything from such an exercise. The wiser course, in my view, would be, instead of restoring the original substantive sentences of the said respondents to impose a substantial fine on them and direct the major part of the same to be paid as compensation to the original complainant. Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, learned Counsel for respondents 1 to 4 does not have any objection. 7. The next question is the quantum of fine which should be imposed on respondents 1 to 4. I my view, the quantum of fine for the offence punishable under sections 324 r.w. 34 I.P.C. does not warrant any enhancement but that under section 325 r.w. 34 I.P.C. certainly does. But even on this count, in my view, respondent Nos. 7. The next question is the quantum of fine which should be imposed on respondents 1 to 4. I my view, the quantum of fine for the offence punishable under sections 324 r.w. 34 I.P.C. does not warrant any enhancement but that under section 325 r.w. 34 I.P.C. certainly does. But even on this count, in my view, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 viz., Tukaram Devappa Gade and Vishnu Bhimrao Gade should be saddled with a more severe fine than respondent Nos. 3 and 4 Chandrakant Tukaram Gade and Bhimrao Maruti Gade, because the former assaulted the Original Complainant on his head, fore-head, back and face with stones and the later only inflicted blows with fists and kicks on him. In my view, the ends of justice would be met if the fine of Rs. 1500/- imposed on respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- each and the said fine (Rs. 1500/-) in respect of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 is enhanced to Rs. 5000/- each. 8. In the result this revision is allowed. Although I confirm the sentence awarded by the Appellate Court to respondent Nos. 1 to 4 for offence punishable under sections 324 r.w. 34 I.P.C. but I enhance the sentence imposed on the said respondents by the Appellate Court for the offence punishable under section 325 r.w. 34 I.P.C. in the following manner: The sentence till rising of the Court of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 for the offence punishable under sections 325 r.w. 34 I.P.C. imposed by the Appellate Court is maintained but the sentence of fine is enhanced in case of respondents Tukaram Devappa Gode and Vishnu Bhimrao Gade, from Rs. 1500/- each to Rs. 10,000/- and in that of respondents Chandrakant Tukaram Gade and Bhimrao Maruti Gade from Rs. 1500/- each to Rs. 5000/- each. The fine shall be deposited by the said respondents within 2 months from today in the trial Court. Out of it Rs. 20,000/- would be paid as compensation to original complainant Bapurao Shankar Rokade. Immediately on its being deposited, the trial Court shall inform the original complainant and pay the same to him and in case he is not live to his legal heirs. Out of it Rs. 20,000/- would be paid as compensation to original complainant Bapurao Shankar Rokade. Immediately on its being deposited, the trial Court shall inform the original complainant and pay the same to him and in case he is not live to his legal heirs. In case the respondents No. 1 to 4 fail to deposit the fine within the stipulated time, they shall be taken into custody to serve a sentence of one year's R.I. for the offence punishable under section 325 r.w. 34 I.P.C. Rule is made absolute in the said terms. It would be open for the trial Court to accept the fine on production of a certified copy of my judgment, which in case an application is made by the Counsel for the parties shall be issued within 2 weeks from today. Revision Application allowed. -----