JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the accused-petitioner against the judgment dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sikar (Camp Srimadhopur). While confirming the conviction for the offence under Sections 323 and 326 I.P.C., the sentence was reduced to 15 days rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. and to one month's rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default to further undergo two months' simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C. 2. The case, in brief, was that on 22.6.1993 F.I.R. was lodged by Kajod, Gorly, Anchi, Kesri and Manju Harijan in Police Station Ringus to the effect that at about 5-6 P.M., Raghuveer along with his wife, sister and other accused persons, armed with lathis and sharp-edged weapons, came on a tractor to the field bearing khasra No. 595, which is said to be allotted to the family members of the complainants in the year 1989, and tried to forcibly cultivate the field. A revenue suit is also stated to be pending in respect of the field in dispute. On resisting, the complainants were beaten-up and they received injuries which were caused by sharp-edged as well as by blunt weapons. After investigation the police has filed charge-sheet against five accused persons namely Raghuveer, Sajana, Lalaram, Kailash and Mahendra for the offence under Sections 148, 447, 323, 326/149 I.P.C. 3. In support of the prosecution case, twelve witnesses were examined and statements of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. In defence, two witnesses were examined and the trial Court, after bearing the parties, acquitted Kailash and Mahendra and convicted Raghuveer, Rajan and Lalaram for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default to further undergo 15 days' simple imprisonment and for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C. accused-petitioner Raghuveer was sentenced to undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3000/- and in default to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. Against this judgment and order of conviction passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ringus, appeal was preferred which was partly allowed vide impugned judgment dated 5.2.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sikar (camp Srimadhopur) as mentioned herein-before. 4. 3000/- and in default to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. Against this judgment and order of conviction passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ringus, appeal was preferred which was partly allowed vide impugned judgment dated 5.2.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sikar (camp Srimadhopur) as mentioned herein-before. 4. Heard learned counsel for the accused-petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record. 5. It was, inter alia, contended by the learned counsel for accused-petitioner that only general allegations were levelled against him and even injured Kesri did not state in her examination-in-chief that the accused-petitioner has caused any grievous injury by sharp-edged weapon on her hand. It was further contended that PW-11 Manju has ascribed the grievous injury to co-accused Lalaram, and not to the accused-petitioner. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that the statement of injured Kesri is unimpeachable, who categorically stated in her cross-examination that the injury was caused by the accused-petitioner Raghuveer. Other eye-witnesses, namely Gorly, Anchi and Rajendra, have also supported the prosecution case. 7. I have considered the rival submissions. In this incident PW-1 Kesri sustained grievous injury on her right forearm by sharp-edged weapon, which was proved by PW-9 Dr. Bajranglal Soni. In the same incident, he also proved the injuries of Kajod, Anchi and Gorly. In the trial the injured Kesri categorically stated that none except the accused-petitioner Raghuveer caused the injury to her. Gorly also deposed on the same lines. From the statement of PW-6 Anchi, again this fact is proved that the grievous injury caused by sharp-edged weapon to Kesri, was inflicted by the accused-petitioner. It was also proved that the accused-petitioner also caused simple injuries to other injured persons. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment so far conviction of the accused-petitioner for the offence under Sections 326 and 323 I.P.C. is concerned. 8. It was next contended that the accused-petitioner is an illiterate agriculturist and the incident pertains to the year 1993 and that almost fourteen years have already elapsed. He is not having any criminal antecedent, and that he had remained in judicial custody from 5.2.2003 to 15.2.2003 and thus, he may now be let off on the sentence already undergone by him. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered in Gurucharan & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, 1992 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 680 . 9. He is not having any criminal antecedent, and that he had remained in judicial custody from 5.2.2003 to 15.2.2003 and thus, he may now be let off on the sentence already undergone by him. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered in Gurucharan & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, 1992 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 680 . 9. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed this prayer and contended that one month's imprisonment was not much for the offence. 10. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar. This matter pertains to the year 1993 and since then the accused-petitioner is facing criminal proceeding. It was not alleged that the accused-petitioner is a man of criminal antecedent. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the sentence already undergone by the accused-petitioner with an enhanced fine shall meet the ends of justice. 11. Consequently, this revision is partly allowed. The conviction of accused-petitioner under Sections 326 and 323 I.P.C. is maintained but the corporal sentence is reduced to that already undergone by the accused-petitioner and the fine is enhanced from Rs. 10,000/- to, Rs. 15,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo two months' simple imprisonment. Out of the fine amount, if realized, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- shall be paid to Smt. Kesri, as compensation for the grievous injury received by her. 12. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner seeks two months' time for depositing the fine amount. In the interest of justice, two months time is allowed to deposit the fine amount. On his failure to deposit the fine amount within the period of two months, accused-petitioner Raghuveer shall surrender before the trial Court to undergo the sentence awarded in default of the payment of fine and on his failure to do so, the trial Court shall take steps in accordance with law.Revision partly allowed. *******