Judgment Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. Harvinder Singh and Amrik Singh, petitioners, were convicted by the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patti, under Sections 326, 324, and 323 IPC. Aggrieved against the same, they filed their appeal wherein the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar came to conclusion that no offence under Section 326 IPC is made out. However, he has upheld their conviction under Section 324 and 323 IPC. Petitioners have been sentenced under Section 324 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months and under Section 323 ICP, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. In the present case Lakhbir Singh is injured. Lakhbir Singh appeared as PW. 3 along with another eye witness Harsha Singh, PW. 4. Both the Courts below have rightly relied upon the testimony of Lakhbir Singh PW. 3 as he was injured in the occurrence and he was stamped witness. Injured-eye witness will be the last person to substitute the accused. In the present case, testimony of Lakhbir Singh has been corroborated by Harsha Singh, PW. 4. 3. The Appellate Court has already granted relief to the petitioners by holding that no offence under Section 326 IPC has been committed. 4. Mr. Pawan Dabla, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners has stated that in the present case occurrence had taken place on 28.1.1989 and a period of 19 years has passed. He has brought to my notice that in the head note of trial Court judgment age of Harvinder Singh, petitioner, was recorded as 45 years and of Amrik Singh, it was recorded as 32 years. He has further stated that Harvinder Singh is now aged about 64 years and Amrik Singh is about 51 years and in the last 19 years, they have got many responsibilities of the family and their children are of marriageable age. Appeal of the petitioners was decided on 20.7.1996. They were granted bail by this Court on 6.8.1996. According to Mr. Dabla, they have already undergone 16 days of their actual sentence. 5. I do not find it to be just to send the petitioners behind the bars after 19 years. Furthermore, it was submitted by Mr. Dabla, that it was vehemently contended before the Appellate Court below that the petitioners should be released on probation. 6. I am inclined to accept the prayer of Mr. 5. I do not find it to be just to send the petitioners behind the bars after 19 years. Furthermore, it was submitted by Mr. Dabla, that it was vehemently contended before the Appellate Court below that the petitioners should be released on probation. 6. I am inclined to accept the prayer of Mr. Dabla and release the petitioners on probation for a period of six months to maintain good conduct and not to commit any such offence. Bonds to this effect shall be furnished by the petitioners in the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patti. However, sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- each and the same shall be converted as cost of litigation. Fine be deposited in the Court on or before 16.5.2008. The fine, if so deposited, be disbursed to injured Lakhbir Singh. 7. With these modifications, the present revision petition is disposed of.