Judgment ( 1. ) WITH the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the case is finally heard. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 1. 9. 2008 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, mandla in Criminal Appeal No. 158/2007 whereby he has dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence of the applicant as passed by the trial court. ( 2. ) THE trial court convicted the applicant for an offence under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1000/- or in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. ( 3. ) THE victim of the incident was father Girdhari (P. W. 1) of the applicant. ( 4. ) THE prosecution case that has been proved against the applicant is that on 30. 3. 2000 at about 6. 30 a. m. , he assaulted his father Girdhari (P. W. 1) with a lathi. In the incident Girdhari (P. W. 1) sustained a fracture on the humerus bone of his left hand. The first information report about the assault was lodged by Girdhari (P. W. 1)on the same day at Police Station, Niwas, District Mandla. Girdhari (P. W. 1) was medically examined by Dr. Archana sharan (P. W. 5 ). Ex. P3, is the injury report, which corroborates the evidence of Girdhari (P. W. 1) regarding the injuries received by him. Ex. P4, is the X-ray plate which confirms a fracture on the left humerus bone of girdhari (P. W. 1 ). ( 5. ) THE trial court as well as the appellate court have recorded a finding against the applicant that he caused a grievous injury to Girdhari (P. W. 1 ). Both the courts below have given cogent reasons in support of its aforesaid conclusion. The finding to the above effect is amply borne out from the evidence and materials brought on record. The learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any illegality and perversity in the concurrent findings of the two courts below regarding conviction of the applicant under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction of the applicant under Section 325 of the indian Penal Code is, therefore, hereby affirmed. ( 6. The learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any illegality and perversity in the concurrent findings of the two courts below regarding conviction of the applicant under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction of the applicant under Section 325 of the indian Penal Code is, therefore, hereby affirmed. ( 6. ) SO far as the question of sentence is concerned, the applicant has already undergone more than four months of imprisonment. There is nothing on record to show that he is a habitual offender. The incident also took place on a sudden quarrel between the applicant and his injured father Girdhari (P. W. 1) over collection of "mahua" flowers. Taking into consideration the totality of circumstances, I am of the opinion that the interest of justice would be met by awarding a sentence for the period already undergone by the applicant. The sentence of fine is, however, affirmed. The applicant is in jail and he be released immediately, if not wanted in any other case. ( 7. ) WITH the above modification in the sentence, the revision is partly allowed.