Judgment ( 1. ) THIS appeal is directed by the accused/appellants under section 374 (2) of Cr. P. C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 30. 1. 1999 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in S. T. No. 2/94 convicting each of them under Sections 147 and twice under section 323/149 of I. P. C. for causing injuries to Ramprakash as well as Ramashish with a direction to undergo for three months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 200/- separately in all three counts along with a direction that in default of depositing the fine amount they shall suffer further one month simple imprisonment for each count. ( 2. ) AS per case of the prosecution on 18. 7. 1993 at about 4. 00 oclock in the Noon complainant Ramashish Mishra alongwith ramprakash and Manvati were present at their field of Tatehra, at the same time Rammani, Indramani, Indralok, Ramjeet, Kashi Raman, jagdish Prasad, Awdhesh Prasad and Ramgopal came there and on account of some previous dispute regarding the agriculture land they abused with filthy languages to Ramashish and Ramprakash and started their beating by means of stick, when Manvati came to rescue them, then she was also subjected to beating by stick. On hearing the shout of such quarrel the villagers namely Teerath Prasad and Bhaiyalal also came there and rescue the complainant party. Subsequent to incident the complainant party went to Police Station Garh and lodged the FIR (Ex. P. 3), on which an offence under Section 147, 148, 294, 323/149 of ipc was registered against the appellants. The injured persons were sent to hospital where their MLC reports were prepared, witnesses were interrogated, appellants were arrested and on completion of investigation they were charge sheeted for the offence under Section 147, 148, 294, 323 and 307 of IPC. ( 3. ) AFTER committing the case on framing the charges of aforesaid offence the appellants; abjured the guilty on which the trial was held. After recording the evidence on appreciation of the same by acquitting the appellants from the charge of Section 307 and the charge of Section 323 of IPC regarding injuries of victim Manvati they were convicted under Section 147 and 323/147 of IPC for causing simple hurt to the victims Ramprakash and Ramashish. The same is under challenged in this appeal at the instance of the accused/ appellants. ( 4. The same is under challenged in this appeal at the instance of the accused/ appellants. ( 4. ) SHRI Siddharth Datt, learned counsel of the appellants after taking me through evidence led by the prosecution vehemently argued that it was a case for acquittal of the appellants but in the course of the argument in the light of evidence on making some query he restricted his submission to convict the appellants under the aforesaid offence with a sentence for which they have already undergone during trial i. e. for seven days between 8. 9. 1993 to 14. 9. 1993 by enhancing some amount of fine under the discretion of the Court and prayed to allow the appeal accordingly. ( 5. ) SHRI J. K. Jain, learned Government Advocate opposed the aforesaid prayer saying that the findings of the trial Court and sentence awarded to the appellants are based on proper appreciation of the evidence and also in conformity with law, the same do no require any interference at this stage either for acquittal or reduction of jail sentence and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. ( 6. ) HAVING heard the counsel at length, on perusing the evidence led by the prosecution and the impugned judgment, I have not found any infirmity, perversity or illegality in the appreciation of the evidence in holding conviction against of the appellants by the trial Court. Although during the course of the argument such question was also conceded by the appellants counsel. In such premises, the findings of the trial Court holding guilty to the appellants for the alleged offence either in relation to forming unlawful assembly or causing simple hurt to Ramashish and Ram Prakash by the appellants do not require any interference at this stage. Hence, same are hereby affirmed. It is noted that keeping in view of the aforesaid argument of the appellant counsel, on the cost of repetition the evidence of prosecution witnesses, is not being mentioned elaborately at this stage as the same do not appear to be required. ( 7. ) I deem fit to mention here that according to record immediately after the incident, FIR (Ex. P. 3) was lodged and on referring Ramashish and Ram Prakash to hospital the alleged injuries were found on their person by the doctor who examined and prepared the MLC reports. Ramashish. ( 7. ) I deem fit to mention here that according to record immediately after the incident, FIR (Ex. P. 3) was lodged and on referring Ramashish and Ram Prakash to hospital the alleged injuries were found on their person by the doctor who examined and prepared the MLC reports. Ramashish. (P. W. 3) supported the first information report and also the alleged incident. His version is further supported by the other victim Ram Prakash (PW-4) and by some other eyewitnesses. Dr. Chandramani Mishra (P. W. 1), who prepared the MLC reports (Ex. P. 1) and (Ex. P-2) of the aforesaid respective victims also proved the same. In such circumstances the findings holding guilty to the appellants do not require any interference at this stage. ( 8. ) COMING to consider the argument advanced for reducing the jail sentence of the appellants. On perusing the record, I have found some substance in it. It is apparent that the incident took place long back in the year 1993, thereafter appellants have already suffered mental agony of this case for more than 15 years along with the custody of the jail during trial for seven days. Looking to the nature of the offence and injuries sustained by the victims, I am not inclined to extend the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the appellants, however in the available facts and circumstance of the case after fifteen years from the date of the incident instead to send the appellants to jail, i deem fit to punish them with the sentence for which they have already undergone as referred above but by enhancing the amount of fine from rs. 200/- to 500/- for each count of the aforesaid offence against all of the appellants. ( 9. ) IN view of the aforesaid, by affirming the conviction of the appellants, this appeal is allowed only in part and the jail sentence awarded by the trial Court under Section 147 and under Section 323/149 (twice) to the appellants are reduced for the period for which they have already suffered judicial custody during trial, as stated above by enhancing the amount of fine from Rs. 200/- to 500/- on each count of the conviction (it means total fine from Rs. 600/- to 1,500/- against each of the appellants ). 200/- to 500/- on each count of the conviction (it means total fine from Rs. 600/- to 1,500/- against each of the appellants ). In default of depositing such fine within sixty days from today the concerning appellant has to suffer further one-month simple imprisonment. If such fine amount is not deposited within prescribed period then the trial Court shall be liberty to take appropriate steps to serve the aforesaid sentence to the appellants, as the case may be. ( 10. ) THE appeal is allowed in part as indicated above.