Judgment: This revision petition has been filed under Section 397 r/w S.401 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 05.02.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shajapur in Criminal Appeal No.341/2010, whereby the present petitioners were convicted for offence under Section 325/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo six months S.I with fine of Rs.300/- each. The present petitioners were further convicted for offence u/S.323/34 and 427 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo three months S.I. with fine of Rs.400/- each. They further convicted for offence u/S.341 of the IPC with fine of Rs.100/- each. 02. Brief facts necessary for elucidation are that on 19.08.2008 the complainant Jojansingh was coming from the village Timaich on his motorbike along with his wife and daughter. On the way all the accused/petitioners were standing there and they stopped the complainant and abused him in filthy language and started beating by lathis, as a result complainant sustained grievous injuries. The wife and daughter of the complainant also sustained injuries and they snatched her mangalsutra and a mobile phone. The complaint was lodged by the complainant in the police station Kotwali, Shajapur at Crime No.540/08. After framing of charges and recording of evidence, petitioners were convicted as stated above, hence the present revision. 03. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that according to the Dr. Mahendra Gupta the complainants sustained eight injuries, all were simple in nature. Counsel for the petitioners has urged that the conviction is contrary to the principles of law. The Court below has failed to appreciate the evidence and there are material omissions and contradictions in the testimony of the material prosecution witnesses. However, the prosecution has been unable to prove the offence under Sections 325/34, 323/34, 427 and 341 of the IPC. Counsel also stated that the petitioners have undergone custodial sentence of more than one and half month. 04. Counsel prayed that the revision deserves to be allowed and the judgment of conviction deserves to be setaside. In the alternate Counsel has prayed that if the Court is satisfied regarding the conviction the custodial sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. 05. Counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the petitioners and submitted that according to Dr. Mahendra Gupta the complainant received fracture on the metacarpal bone. In the alternate Counsel has prayed that if the Court is satisfied regarding the conviction the custodial sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. 05. Counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the petitioners and submitted that according to Dr. Mahendra Gupta the complainant received fracture on the metacarpal bone. Counsel submitted that there is concurrent finding against the petitioners and the judgment of the Appellate Court is in accordance with law and does not require any interference and the revision filed by the petitioners be dismissed. 06. On considering the above submissions, I find that the impugned order is based on valid and cogent reasons and proper marshalling of evidence and no infirmity can be found with the impugned judgment of the Trial Court. I have no hesitation in upholding the conviction of the accused/petitioners for offence under Sections 325/34, 323/34, 427 and 341 of the IPC. However, considering the fact that the all the petitioners are young persons; aged between 27 and 30 years and the fact that they have undergone one and half months of the custodial sentence, the alternate prayer of the Counsel for the petitioners being limited and reasonable is allowed in the interest of justice. The custodial sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. However, the fine amount is further raised by Rs.3,000/-; each which shall be deposited by the accused/petitioners in the Trial Court and paid equally to injured/complainant Jojansingh and his wife Santoshbai as compensation under Section 357 of the Cr.P.C. within a period of two months from the date of this judgment. On failure to pay the fine within the stipulated period and the petitioners shall undergo the remaining sentence as directed by the lower Court. 07. With the aforesaid modification the revision is partly allowed to the extent herein above indicated. 08. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned lower Court for compliance.