JUDGMENT : Pradip Mohanty, J. - This appeal is directed against the Judgment & Order Dated 18.05.1989 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bolangir in S.C. No. 2/2 of 1989 convicting the Appellant u/s 457/325 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year on each count; the sentences to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution is that in the night of 22.06.1988, while P.W.4 was sleeping in her house, the accused-Appellant, who is the father-in-law of her son, trespassed into the house and having said that he would kill her, pressed her neck by both his hands and dealt fist blows on her. When her son (P.W. 3) intervened, the Appellant pushed him away. As her son raised alarm, the Appellant fled away. Due to assault, P.W.4 sustained injury on her neck and one of her teeth from the upper jaw was dislocated. Thereafter, P.W.4 was taken to the Chudapali P.H.C. and on police requisition she was medically examined. P.W.3 lodged the F.I.R. at Dungripali Out-post. Investigation followed, on completion of which charge-sheet was submitted against the Appellant. 3. The plea of defence was complete denial & false implication due to inimical relationship with the informant. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as five witnesses & defence examined two witnesses in support of its plea. 5. The Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bolangir, who tried the case, on perusal of the evidence & materials available on record by his Judgment dated 18.05.1989 convicted the Appellant for commission of offence under Sections 457/325 I.P.C. 6. Perused the record. There is no dispute about the relationship between the Appellant & the victim-P.W.4. They are 'Samudi' & 'Samuduni'. P.W.4 is the mother-in-law of the daughter of the present Appellant. P.W.3, the informant is the son-in-law of the present Appellant & D.W.1 is the daughter-in-law of P.W.4. The evidence of injured-P.W.4 is very clear & cogent to the effect that the Appellant dealt fist blows on her right cheek and chest. As a result, one of her teeth was uprooted from the right side of her upper jaw. There was bleeding from her mouth. P.W.3 was cross-examined at length, but nothing has been elicited to discredit his evidence. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned Judgment. There was bleeding from her mouth. P.W.3 was cross-examined at length, but nothing has been elicited to discredit his evidence. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned Judgment. 7. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that since the Appellant was in custody for some weeks, he may be released under the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. But Learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently opposes such prayer. 8. Considering the submissions made by the parties and keeping in view the relationship between the Appellant and the victim, which is 'Samudi' & 'Samuduni', this Court modifies the sentence passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar to the extent that instead of substantive sentence the present Appellant shall pay a fine of Rs. 500 (five hundred) in default undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. With the above modification of sentence, the appeal is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed