JUDGMENT 1. . - Accused petitioner Kookar Singh has preferred this revision against the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Kota dated 22.5.2000 by which he maintained the conviction and sentence of accused petitioner under various sections as given below : U/Sec. 326, IPC - Three years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default, one month's simple imprisonment. U/Sec. 324/149, IPC - One year's simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 250/-, and in default, seven days' simple imprisonment. U /Sec. 323 / 139, IPC - One month's simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/-, and in default, seven days' simple imprisonment. U/Sec. 148, IPC - One year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default, one month's simple imprisonment. 2. 1 have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor. 3. Briefly stated on 23.6.1979, Avtar Singh reported at Police Station, Sultanpur that at about 9.00 p.m., he and Sodagar Singh brought manure in the tractor of Harnek Singh. When they reached the field, it was found that Mitthu Singh had watered the field. When Avtar Singh saw the field filled with water, he came back along with the persons with whom he had gone. Then Mitthu Singh, Gurnam Singh, Mitthu Singh's mother, his sister, Darshan Singh, Mandar Singh and Kookar Singh came armed with deadly weapons. Mahendra Singh and Chhida Singh asked them that they should rise as these persons had come to kill them. Immediately thereafter the accused persons named above came and he was given beatings by so many accused persons. Sodagar Singh was beaten by different arms by Darshan Singh, Mandar Singh and Kookar Singh. It were Billu Singh and Harnek Singh who had seen the occurrence. The police registered a case under Section 326, IPC along with other'sections and after investigation submitted challan before the learned Magistrate. Accused petitioner was tried for the aforesaid offences and was convicted and sentenced as stated above. On appeal, the conviction and sentences were confirmed. 4. During arguments, learned Counsel Jr the petitioner in view of State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, JT 1999 (1) SC 456=1(1999) CCR 92 (SC)=II (1999) SLT 83 , was not able to show any glaring feature which may entitle the accused petitioner for acquittal. On appeal, the conviction and sentences were confirmed. 4. During arguments, learned Counsel Jr the petitioner in view of State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, JT 1999 (1) SC 456=1(1999) CCR 92 (SC)=II (1999) SLT 83 , was not able to show any glaring feature which may entitle the accused petitioner for acquittal. His only contention was that other accused persons were acquitted on the same set of evidence but this cannot be a ground which may be called as a glaring feature in view of the fact that the finding of conviction of the petitioner under Section 326, IPC has been made on appreciation of evidence and the same was further reappreciated by the learned Appellate Court. Such a finding cannot be further reappreciated by this Court. 5. The next contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner was that since the accused petitioner is a man of 75 years of age now, he may be dealt with leniency. He cited Gurucharan and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan,1992 Cr1.L.R. (Raj.) 680 , in which the accused was tried for the offence under Section 302, IPC but the conviction was done under Section 326, IPC and accused 'S' had remained in custody for six days and it was held in the facts and circumstances of the case that the sentence already undergone with increase of fine will meet the ends of justice. He also cited Kajod v. State of Rajasthan, RCC, 1993 page 456 , in which the accused remained in custody for more than 15 days and this was held sufficient but the fine was enhanced which was to be paid to the injured. He also relied on Mangla and 15 Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan, Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1986 page 9, in which the sentence under Sections 326/149, IPC w,,s considered and it was held that it was unjust to send the accused petitioner back to jail and the sentence of imprisonment already undergone was held sufficient. 6. There is no hard and fast rule for the sentence according to which the period of sentence may be fitted in a straitjacket. There is a clear cut finding that the accused petitioner had committed an offence under Section 326, IPC. He is in custody since 22.5.2000. 6. There is no hard and fast rule for the sentence according to which the period of sentence may be fitted in a straitjacket. There is a clear cut finding that the accused petitioner had committed an offence under Section 326, IPC. He is in custody since 22.5.2000. Of course, the occurrence took place in 1979 and no doubt the accused petitioner had undergone a lot of mental tension and financial loss but the sentence should be such ,which may not only be sufficient for him in the facts and circumstances of the case but which may also be an eye-opener for others. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the sentence should be reduced from three years to one year but the sentence of fine under Section 326, IPC should be maintained and the conviction and sentence under other various sections as stated above should also be maintained. 7. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the accused petitioner for offence under Section 326, IPC, his jail sentence is reduced from three years to one year but fine of Rs. 1,000/- is maintained. The conviction and sentences under other sections are hereby maintained.Revision Petition partly allowed. *******