JUDGMENT Shantanu Kemkar, J. This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 30-10-1996 passed by VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 603/1995 whereby convicting the appellant of offence u/s 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him for imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 3000/-. The prosecution case in brief may be mentioned as under: On 18-3-1995 at about 7 p.m. the appellant along with other acquitted co-accused persons i.e. Narayan, Dilip, Guddu abused Gulab on the dispute about some money transaction and caused injury on his head. After investigation the police filed charge sheet against appellant and aforesaid other three acquitted co-accused persons. The trial Court after assessing the evidence led by the prosecution acquitted the 3 accused persons and convicted the appellant as mentioned above. Hence this appeal. The contention of the appellant in this appeal is that the learned trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant on the evidence of Gulab (PW1) and Halkeram (PW2). Halkeram (PW2) is close relative of the complainant Gulab (PW1) and was highly interested witness. Seizure of the weapon 'Baka' has not been proved and delay of 4 to 5 hours in lodging the First Information Report has also not been explained. Alternatively in the appeal it has been prayed that appellant should have been given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. I have perused the evidence led by the prosecution and the impugned judgment. From the evidence of Gulab (PW 1) it has been duly proved that the appellant caused injury on his head by 'Baka'. This evidence of Gulab has been corroborated by the evidence of Halkeram (PW2). Halkeram cannot be disbelieved solely on the ground that he is close relative of Gulab (PW 1). Dr. S.K. Pande (PW 3) has proved that there were injuries on the head of Gulab when he treated him on 19-3-1995. He deposed that Gulab was hospitalised upto 28-3-1995 as indoor patient. Dr. Amita Jain (PW 7) examined Gulab on the date of incident also supported the evidence of Dr. S.K. Pande (PW3). On the basis of the aforesaid evidence the judgment of the trial Court convicting the appellant cannot be faulted with. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction recorded against the appellant is affirmed. Dr. Amita Jain (PW 7) examined Gulab on the date of incident also supported the evidence of Dr. S.K. Pande (PW3). On the basis of the aforesaid evidence the judgment of the trial Court convicting the appellant cannot be faulted with. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction recorded against the appellant is affirmed. As regards the submission of the appellant that since the incident is of the year 1995 and the appellant is not a habitual offender and was a young person of 20 years of age and has remained in jail for about 27 days it would be very harsh to send him back to jail after a lapse of about more 8 years, the same appears to be reasonable. In view of the above submission and taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegation and the fact that the appellant has remained in jail for more than 27 days and he was only of 20 years of age at the time, the incident took place. I am inclined to accept this submission and accordingly, I allow the appeal in part and modify the sentence of imprisonment of 3 years awarded by the trial Court to imprisonment for the period already undergone with increase of fine amount of Rs. 3000/- to Rs. 5000/-. The appellant shall deposit the fine amount in the trial Court within a period of three months hereof failing which he will have to undergo the sentence as awarded by the trial Court. With the above modification in the sentence the appeal stands partly allowed. Final Result : Allowed