JUDGMENT Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 2. By consent, admitted and taken up for final hearing forthwith, as record and proceedings have already been received. 3. The applicant and three others were prosecuted on the allegation of having committed offences punishable under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code [For short, "IPC"], 323 of the IPC, 504 of the IPC, 506 Part-II of the IPC, read with Section 34 of the IPC. One of the accused - accused no.4, Balaji, died during the pendency of the trial. The applicant and two others i.e. Dilip s/o. Nagorao Dhutade and Purbhaji Nagorao Dhutade were held guilty by the learned 6th Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Nanded, after holding a trial. The learned Magistrate convicted the applicant of an offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. So far as the other two accused were concerned, the learned Magistrate held them guilty only of an offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC, read with Section 34 of the IPC, and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment till the rising of the court. The applicant challenged the conviction and sentence imposed upon him, by filing an appeal. But the learned Sessions Judge, Nanded, who heard the appeal, dismissed the same. It is under these circumstances, the applicant has approached this Court by filing present Revision Application challenging the correctness, legality and propriety of his conviction and the sentence imposed upon him. 4. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that he was not pressing the Revision Application with respect to the merits of the conviction recorded by the learned Magistrate and affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge. He submitted that, what he was seeking is, substantial reduction of the sentence for which, according to him, there are valid grounds and reasons. In view of this concession made by the learned Counsel for the applicant, I have not examined the matter with the object of finding out the correctness of the conviction recorded by the Magistrate and upheld by the Sessions Court. I have examined the matter only in the context of the propriety of the sentence imposed upon the applicant. 5. In view of this concession made by the learned Counsel for the applicant, I have not examined the matter with the object of finding out the correctness of the conviction recorded by the Magistrate and upheld by the Sessions Court. I have examined the matter only in the context of the propriety of the sentence imposed upon the applicant. 5. I have glanced through the record & proceedings. The prosecution case was as follows: That, on 28-5-2003, the victim Chandu s/o. Pandurang Gajbhare was standing in front of his house at about 6.00 p.m. That, at that time, the applicant and the other three accused came there and questioned him as to why he had lodged a complaint against them with the Police previously. Having asked him so, the applicant and other accused abused the said Chandu and assaulted him. The applicant is alleged to have given a blow to the said Chandu on his head by a stick, which the applicant was allegedly holding. Balaji also allegedly assaulted the said Chandu by a stick and the other two accused allegedly assaulted Chandu by fists. That, the incident took place in the presence of several persons including the Sarpanch of the village, who intervened in the matter and stopped the assault. That, a complaint, therefore, came to be lodged at the Gramin Police Station, Nanded. 6. Seven witnesses were examined in the course of trial. But it is not necessary to discuss their evidence in view of the concession made by the learned Counsel for the applicant, except as would be necessary for the purpose of determining what would be the proper sentence that should be imposed upon the applicant. 7. In this context, the medical evidence is significant. I have gone through the evidence of Dr. Suryakant Nagshetwar (PW 4), with respect to the nature of injuries sustained by the victim Chandu. It appears that Chandu had sustained three injuries. All were opined to be simple by the said witness. The applicant is alleged to have inflicted only one injury out of the three injuries sustained by the victim and obviously, even this injury, though on the head of the victim, is opined to be simple. 8. It is clear from the evidence of Chandu, that only one blow was given to him by the present applicant. 9. The applicant is alleged to have inflicted only one injury out of the three injuries sustained by the victim and obviously, even this injury, though on the head of the victim, is opined to be simple. 8. It is clear from the evidence of Chandu, that only one blow was given to him by the present applicant. 9. The weapon used by the applicant is said to be one stick. It is extremely doubtful, whether the stick can be said to be such, which used as a weapon of offence, was likely to cause death. In any case, there is no evidence to that effect. 10. Neither the applicant nor the other accused who were convicted had any past criminal record. The incident took place on 28-5-2003, and the trial remained pending till the year 2010. The appeal came to be decided on 6-6-2013, whereafter, the applicant was taken in custody. He remained in custody till he was released on bail pursuant to the order passed by this Court in the present Revision Application. I am informed that, the applicant actually remained in custody for a period of 12 days. 11. Upon considering all the relevant aspects of the matter and keeping in mind that, the incident had taken place more than ten years back; that, the age of the applicant is more than 60 years; that, the applicant had no previous criminal record; that, after the incident also, the applicant is not alleged to be involved in any other crime; and that, the other accused, who participated in the assault, have been treated leniently by the trial court, it would be proper to reduce the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the applicant, to the period already undergone by him. It seems that no useful purpose is likely to be served by requiring the applicant to be detained in prison for some further point of time. Instead, the amount of fine imposed upon the applicant should be enhanced and the enhanced amount of fine should be made payable to the victim as and by way of compensation. In my opinion, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the same would meet the ends of justice. 12. The Revision Application is partly allowed. (a) The order of conviction of the applicant, as recorded by the trial court and as upheld by the appellate court, is maintained. In my opinion, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the same would meet the ends of justice. 12. The Revision Application is partly allowed. (a) The order of conviction of the applicant, as recorded by the trial court and as upheld by the appellate court, is maintained. However, the substantive sentence imposed upon the applicant is reduced to the period already undergone. (b) The sentence of fine imposed upon the applicant is enhanced to Rs. 5,000/- [Rupees five thousand]. In default of payment of fine, the applicant shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. If the fine is realized, an amount of Rs. 4,800/- [Rupees four thousand eight hundred] therefrom shall be paid to the victim Chandu. (c) The fine paid by the applicant pursuant to the sentence imposed by the trial court shall be adjusted towards the amount of fine that has been imposed by the above order. The balance shall be paid by the applicant within a period of two weeks from today, by depositing the same in the court of learned Magistrate. (d) The learned Magistrate shall ensure that the compensation, as ordered above, is paid to the victim, and report compliance to this Court. 13. The Revision Application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 14. Record & proceedings be sent back. Application partly allowed.