ORDER U.C. Maheshwari, J. 1. This revision is directed on behalf of the applicant/accused, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 9.5.2011 passed by the 8th Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Rewa in Criminal Appeal No. 109/10 whereby dismissing his appeal, the judgment dated 31.3.2010 passed by the JMFC Teothar, Rewa in Criminal Case No. 1139/07 convicting and sentencing the applicant under Section 324 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for RI one year with fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of depositing such fine amount, further one month SI in the earlier section while with fine of Rs. 800/-, in default of depositing the same, further one month SI in the later has been affirmed. 2. The facts giving rise to this revision in short are that the complainant/victim Chetan Singh lodged the report with police station Jawa, district Rewa on dated 28.2.2007 contending that at about 12.30, he accompanied with Amol Singh, went to their field at village Paruhan Tola, Dagdiya, which is situated near the agricultural field of one Ramanand Dubey. As soon as they reached to the field, they were asked by Ramanand Dubey with filthy language why they have come there. Ramanand Dubey was lashed with a rifle. On asking the complainant and Amol Singh, not to abuse them, Ramanand gave a threat to kill them. At the same time, the applicant Bablu, lashed with Farsa came there and gave its blow on the head of Amol Singh, consequently, he fell down. The complainant ran to rescue him, then he was also subjected to blow of stick by Babban, Anil, Ramanand and present applicant along with one more person whose name was not known to the complainant. Amol Singh was also subjected to beating by such accused with legs and fists. On shouting by the victim, the alleged witnesses, Ramniranjan, Kundan Singh and other persons came to the place of incident, on which, the applicant and other accused fled away from such place. In the alleged incident both the victims sustained injuries on different parts of their person. 3. After lodging the report, they were sent to hospital, where their MLC report was prepared according to which complainant Chetan Singh sustained one lacerated wound on his head, two contusions on right shoulder and the left fore-arm respectively and one abrasion on the right scapular region. 3. After lodging the report, they were sent to hospital, where their MLC report was prepared according to which complainant Chetan Singh sustained one lacerated wound on his head, two contusions on right shoulder and the left fore-arm respectively and one abrasion on the right scapular region. So far injury No. 2 and 3 are concerned, he was referred for x-ray also but on carrying-out the same, No. fracture was found on such injury while on the person of victim Amol Singh, one incised wound in front of the head measuring 2x2x1.5 cms and two contusions with swelling respectively on right wrist and on nose, were found. He was referred for x-ray regarding injury No. 1 and 2. On carrying out the same, in injury No. 1 some fracture was found by Dr. R.L. Singh (PW 2) but on sending the x-ray plate to Dr. P.D. Mahant (PW 3) for second opinion then as per his opinion Ex.P/12, No. bony injury was found in such x-ray plate. After receiving such medical and x-ray report and also on completion of the investigation, the accused persons, were charge-sheeted for the offence under Section 294, 323, 506-B and 324/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 4. On framing the charges, the applicant along with other accused, abjured the same, on which, the trial was held. On appreciation of the same, besides the other co-accused, the applicant was held guilty for the offence under Section 324 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in which he was punished with the above mentioned sentence. On filing the appeal along with other co-accused, the same was dismissed, on which, the applicant has come forward to this Court with this revision while No. revision of the other applicants, has been placed before me for any consideration. 5. Without challenging the findings of the courts below holding conviction against the applicant for the above mentioned offence, the applicant's counsel has made his limited submissions for reducing the jail sentence of the applicant from one year RI upto the period for which he has already suffered the jail sentence between 9.5.2011 the date of impugned judgment of the appellate court and 23.5.2011 the date of order suspending his jail sentence by this Court, by enhancing some amount of fine under the discretion of the court. In support of his contention, he said that for considering such prayer the age of the applicant 20 years on the date of the incident should be taken into consideration and besides this, he be also extended such benefit on the background that he being first offender did not have any criminal antecedents in his past life and prayed to allow this revision accordingly. 6. On the other hand, responding the aforesaid argument, by justifying the impugned judgment and its findings holding conviction and sentence against the applicant, said that the same is based on proper appreciation of the evidence and also is in conformity with the law. It does not require any interference at this stage either for extending acquittal or for reducing the jail sentence awarded by the courts below and prayed for dismissal of this revision. 7. Having heard, keeping in view the arguments advanced by the counsel, I have carefully gone through the records of the courts below along with the impugned judgment. I have not found any perversity, irregularity, illegality or anything against the propriety of the law in appreciation of the evidence by the courts below for holding the conviction and sentence against the applicant under the aforesaid sections, therefore, it is held that this is not a fit case for extending acquittal to the applicant. In such premises, the findings of the courts below till this extent are hereby affirmed. 8. Coming to consider the submission of the applicant counsel for reduction of the jail sentence, I have found some substance in it. It is undisputed fact on record that on the date of incident, the present applicant was of the age of 20 years and did not have any criminal antecedent or history. So, in such premises, this Court has to consider this aspect with two angles, first, whether the applicant is entitled for extending the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act in the matter or not If not, then how much sentence, out of the awarded sentence, should be reduced by enhancing the amount of fine or without enhancing the amount of fine 9. After going through the evidence, depositions of the victims as well as the other available ocular evidence and also the medical evidence, in the available circumstances, I am not inclined to extend the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the applicant, although, he was the age of 20 years on the date of the incident and did not have any criminal antecedent but considering his age factor, I deem fit t reduce his jail sentence from RI one year upto the period for which he has suffered the jail sentence between 9.5.2011 the date of appellate court judgment and 23.5.2011 the order of this Court suspending his jail sentence i.e. 15 days, but by enhancing the amount of fine. 10. Therefore, by maintaining the conviction of the applicant under the aforesaid sections, this revision is allowed in part and the jail sentence awarded to him under Section of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is hereby reduced from RI one year upto the period for which he has already undergone as stated above by enhancing the amount of fine from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 2000/-. Failing in depositing such enhanced fine amount within thirty days from today, the applicant has to suffer further RI two months. On depositing the enhanced amount of fine, out of it, Rs. 1500/-be given to victim Amol Singh and Rs. 300/- be given to Chetan Singh, by calling them through summons in the trial court. Till this extent, the findings of the impugned judgment are hereby modified while the other findings are hereby affirmed. 11. Subject to complying the aforesaid direction, the bail bonds of the applicant are hereby discharged. The trial court is directed for taking appropriate steps against the applicant in compliance of the aforesaid direction if the enhanced amount of fine of Rs. 1800/- is not deposited by him within the prescribed period. 12. The revision is allowed in part as indicated above.