Judgment ( 1. ) THIS appeal is directed by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 28. 2. 2000 passed by the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Satna in sessions Trial No. 111/96 convicting the appellant No. 1 Sarman twice while one time to appellant No. 1 Dhanilal under Section 323 of IPC with a direction to undergo RI for six months for each of the count. ( 2. ) THE facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that on 5. 3. 96 one ramesh Kumar S/o Ram Kumar Kushwaha (PW1), the complainant accompanied with victim Lalbahadur (P. W6) and Dinesh Prasad (P. W. 3), all residents of village Podi came to Police Station Nagod and made oral report which was taken in the Rojnamcha Sanha (Ex. P 1-A), according to which at about 10 O Clock when he was returning from his field, on hearing the alarm from the residence of Gulabchand he went to that side where Ramkaran, Ravikaran, Ramtahal, Ashok Kumar, Dhanilal, Rambali, ramdas, Sarman etc were sitting. Dhanilal and Ramkaran had farsa in their hands while accused Ravikaran was having rod and other accused were lashed with sticks. At about 12 O Clock in the noon when they were trying to enter in the house of Gulabchand, on restraining them, they started beating by the aforesaid implements to the complainant party. Maksudan prasad and Ramji Pandey came to rescue the victims but by that time, the complainant Ramesh was subjected to a blow of rod by appellant No. 2 dhanilal, resulstantly, he sustained the injury with bleeding. The other accused including appellant No. 1 Sarman also caused him injuries by the aforesaid means by which he sustained the injury on different parts of his person. Simultaneously Lalbahadur was also beaten by the accused persons with the aforesaid means. Initially, the aforesaid report was written in the rojnamcha Sanha and the victim Ramesh Kumar, Lal Bahadur and one dinesh Kumar were sent to the hospital where after medical examination, their MLC reports were prepared. On receiving such reports, FIR (Ex. P/11)an offence under Section 147,148,149,323 and 325 of the IPC was registered against the present appellants and the other accused (since acquitted) on 23. 5. 96. After holding the investigation, the accused persons were charge-sheeted. On receiving such reports, FIR (Ex. P/11)an offence under Section 147,148,149,323 and 325 of the IPC was registered against the present appellants and the other accused (since acquitted) on 23. 5. 96. After holding the investigation, the accused persons were charge-sheeted. On framing the charges, they abjured the guilt, on which the trial was held in which by extending acquittal to the other accused, the present appellants have been convicted as referred to above. The same is under challenged in this appeal. ( 3. ) IT is noted that as per averments of para-4 of the impugned judgment, one person of the present appellants party died in the alleged incident for which a criminal case for the offence under Section 302 and other connected sections of the IPC was registered against the complainant party and the trial of aforesaid both the cases were held simultaneously by the same court. As per contention of the appellants counsel, some of the person who were prosecuted in the aforesaid case under Section 302 IPC, have been held guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 326 of ipc but he is not in a position to give any whereabouts of the appeal filed by the convicted accused of such other case. ( 4. ) SHRI Saxena, learned counsel of the appellants without assailing any findings of the impugned judgment holding conviction against the appellant for the aforesaid offence submitted his limited submissions for reducing and also remitting the jail sentence by imposing appropriate fine against the appellants under the discretion of the court. In support of this contention, he said that the alleged incident took place long back in the year 1996 and since then both the appellants are facing the mental agony of the case. They had also appeared on various dates before the trial court during trial and also appearing in compliance of the bail order in the present matter. He further said that at the time of incident, appellant No. 1 was of the age of 60 years and now, he is about 70 years of the age. With these submissions, he prayed for remission of the jail sentence by allowing this appeal. ( 5. ) ON the other hand, Shri T. K. Modh, learned Dy. He further said that at the time of incident, appellant No. 1 was of the age of 60 years and now, he is about 70 years of the age. With these submissions, he prayed for remission of the jail sentence by allowing this appeal. ( 5. ) ON the other hand, Shri T. K. Modh, learned Dy. A. G by justifying the impugned conviction of the appellants said that the findings and the approach of the trial court are based on proper appreciation of the evidence and also is in conformity of law. The impugned judgment does not require any interference at this stage either for acquittal or reduction of the jail sentence. He also said that this is not a fit case in which the jail sentence of the appellants could be remitted. ( 6. ) HAVING heard the learned counsel at length, after examining the record and perusing the impugned judgment, I am of the considered view that the trial court has not committed any error or perversity in holding guilty to the appellants for the alleged offence. Appellant No. 1 Sarman was rightly convicted twice in such section and looking to the act of appellant No. 2 Dhanilal, he is rightly convicted for one time in such section. ( 7. ) IT is noted that the factual matrix and the approach of the trial court holding guilty to the appellants under the aforesaid sections have not been challenged on behalf of the appellants and the factual matrix of the case are also not in dispute between the parties, hence the elaborate discussion with respect of re-appreciation of the evidence is not required in the present matter, hence, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are not elaborated in this judgment. ( 8. ) IT is apparent fact on record that initially, the impugned offence was registered in the year 1996. Thereafter, more than 12 years have been passed. Learned Dy. Advocate General has not pointed-out any circumstance showing that the appellants are habitual offenders. In such premises, it is held that the appellants are first offenders. ( 8. ) IT is apparent fact on record that initially, the impugned offence was registered in the year 1996. Thereafter, more than 12 years have been passed. Learned Dy. Advocate General has not pointed-out any circumstance showing that the appellants are habitual offenders. In such premises, it is held that the appellants are first offenders. In the available circumstances and scenario of the case, although, appellants are first offenders but they do not deserve for extending any benefit of Probation of offenders Act but in the prayer of the appellants counsel, I have found some substance and after 12 years, I do not find fit to send the appellants again to jail for facing the jail sentence. Instead it, I deem fit to modify their jail sentence by imposing the fine amount. ( 9. ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, by affirming the judgment of the trial court, this appeal is dismissed on merits, but however, in view of the aforesaid, the jail sentence of both the appellants with respect of all the counts, is hereby set aside. Instead it, they are punished with the fine of rs. 1000/- for each count of the aforesaid offence. Accordingly, appellant no. 1 Sarman is punished with fine of Rs. 2000/- for causing injury to lalbahadur and Ramesh while Dhanilal is punished with fine of Rs. 1000/-for causing injury to Ramesh. Such amount of fine is directed to be deposited within sixty days from today, failing which the concerned appellant has to suffer one month R. I for committing each default. Their bail bonds are hereby discharged. ( 10. ) THE appeal is dismissed on merits but with aforesaid observation and modification in the jail sentence of the appellants.