VINOD PRASAD, J. Revisionist Shish Pal was tried by IInd Assistant Sessions Judge, Budaun in S. T. No. 71 of 1984 for offences under Sections 308/34, I. P. C. , Police Station Bisauli, District Budaun and was convicted and sentenced for 4 years R. I. with fine of Rs. 2,500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo six months further imprisonment for said offences. The revisionist challenged the aforesaid conviction and sentences in criminal appeal No. 227/1995 before Sessions Judge, Budaun. His aforesaid appeal was partly allowed and his conviction and sentences were modified from Section 308 to Section 325, I. P. C. with reduction sentence to two years R. I. with fine of Rs. 1,000/- on that count vide order dated 20-3- 1986 passed by 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Budaun. Aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence revisionist has preferred this revision before this Court. 2. The prosecution allegations against the revisionist in bird eye view are that on 6-5-1983 revisionist had an altercation with Poshaki Lal over purchase of wheat. Motivated by the said altercation when Sohan Lal father of Poshaki Lal was returning to his house after selling the grossary, Shish Pal (present revisionist) exhorted by his father Ram Swarup assaulted Sohan Lal with lathi at 6. 30 p. m. , that day. Cry for help by the injured attracted Poshaki Lal, his brother and other co-villagers Radha Shyam, Nanhoo, Dhuru etc. who all witnessed the incident. The accused persons father and the son took to their heels. Poshaki Lal brought the injured Sohan Lal to the police station Bisauli and lodged his scribed F. I. R. Sohan Lal injured was medically examined and X-rayed in District Hospital Budaun. The usual investigation resulted into charge-sheet against the revisionist on which charge under Section 308, I. P. C. was framed by the Assistant Sessions Judge against the revisionist who denied the same and claimed to be tried. 3. In the trial Radhya Shyam P. W. 1, Nanhoo P. W. 2, Dhuru P. W. 3 were examined as witnesses of fact who all turned hostile and did not support the prosecution version. Informant Dhuru and injured Sohan Lal were examined as P. W. 4 and P. W. 7 respectively and they supported the prosecution case. Dr. 3. In the trial Radhya Shyam P. W. 1, Nanhoo P. W. 2, Dhuru P. W. 3 were examined as witnesses of fact who all turned hostile and did not support the prosecution version. Informant Dhuru and injured Sohan Lal were examined as P. W. 4 and P. W. 7 respectively and they supported the prosecution case. Dr. S. R. Gupta P. W. 6 proved the injury of the injured which he had examined on 7-5-1983 at 3. 15 a. m. and had found a lacerated wound on the top of right of side of forehead 3 cm. above eyebrow which was bone deep with an abrasion on left hand 3 cm. away from the wrist joint. According to the doctor injured was admitted in the hospital and injury No. 1 on the head was grievous. Dr. M. V. Joyal P. W. 5 and doctor R. B. Abbhi P. W. 8 also testified before the Court. Doctor R. B. Abbhi P. W. 8 had X-rayed the injured and had found that central bone of his right side head was fractured and was pressed inside. S. I. N. P. Bhatnager P. W. 9 is the I. O. who had proved the steps taken during the investigation of the crime. 4. Revisionist in his statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. denied the prosecution version and filed various documentary evidences. 5. Assistant Sessions Judge finding the case of the prosecution proved to the hilt convicted the revisionist under Section 308, I. P. C. and sentenced him to 4 years R. I. with fine of Rs. 2,000/- which conviction and sentence, as has been mentioned above, was altered under Section 325, I. P. C. with sentence of 2 years R. I. and fine of Rs. 1,000/- by the lower appellate Court. 6. On such facts I have heard Sri Vinay Saran, learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned A. G. A. in opposition. 7. Learned Counsel for the revisionist did not challenge the conviction part of the judgment and fairly conceded that no fault can be find in respect of appreciation of evidences and applicability of law in judgments of both the Courts below. He also conceded that there is no incredible circumstance in the prosecution evidence so as to dent the prosecution version. He therefore, concentrated only on the question of sentence. 8. He also conceded that there is no incredible circumstance in the prosecution evidence so as to dent the prosecution version. He therefore, concentrated only on the question of sentence. 8. Learned Counsel for the revisionist contended that incident had occurred on 6-5-1983 more than 24 years before and therefore, to send the revisionist to jail after more than two decades to serve out remaining part of imprisonment will not be in the interest of justice. He submitted that form the prosecution evidence there was no pre-planned assault and in fact the incident occurred at the spur of the moment. Learned Counsel for the revisionist contended that a single blow on the head, no doubt caused grievous injury but after such a long gap the injured should be compensated instead of sending the revisionist to jail when it was the first offence of the revisionist. 9. Learned A. G. A. also fairly conceded that no useful purpose will be served in sending the revisionist to jail after 23 years of the incident and therefore, the remaining part of his imprisonment be altered into fine. 10. After hearing both the sides I am of the opinion that it will not be useful to send the revisionist to jail after such a long gap without any fault of the revisionist. The appeal of the revisionist was dismissed by 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge on 20-3-1986 on which day he was taken into custody. His revision before this Court was admitted on 26-5-1986 and therefore, the revisionist had already under gone two months and 5 days of R. I. before being released on bail. Moreover, the revisionist does not have any criminal history. He acted impatiently at the call of his father at the spur of the moment. He seems to be young boy and therefore, I am of the view that his remaining part of imprisonment and fine should be altered into fine only. 11. Resultantly, this revision is dismissed on its merits but the sentence of two years R. I. and fine of Rs. 1,000/- awarded to the revisionist is altered into fine of Rs. 7,000/- for both the sentences. C. J. M. , Budaun is directed to issue warrant of realization of the aforesaid fine against the revisionist Shish Pal. 11. Resultantly, this revision is dismissed on its merits but the sentence of two years R. I. and fine of Rs. 1,000/- awarded to the revisionist is altered into fine of Rs. 7,000/- for both the sentences. C. J. M. , Budaun is directed to issue warrant of realization of the aforesaid fine against the revisionist Shish Pal. Revisionist is directed to deposit the said fine within a period of one month from the date of service of notice to be issued by C. J. M. , Budaun. As soon as the amount of fine is deposited, Rs. 5,000/- shall be given to the injured as compensation for the injury caused to him for which purpose C. J. M. , Budaun will summon the injured and hand him over the compensation amount within a period of one week from the date deposit of the fine by the revisionist. In the event of default in depositing the fine awarded by this judgment, C. J. M. , Budaun will cause the revisionist to be arrested and will lodge him in jail to serve out the remaining part of sentence which has been awarded to him by the Lower Appellate Court. 12. With the aforesaid modification in sentence this revision is allowed in part. 13. A copy of this judgment be sent to C. J. M. , Budaun forthwith for his intimation and further action. C. J. M. , Budaun will send a compliance report to this Court, as soon as the compliance is made immediately after the period allowed in this judgment. 14. The revision will be listed alongwith report of the C. J. M. Budaun in the week commencing 21st May, 2007. Revision partly allowed. .