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 02.08.2013 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Dhar in Criminal Appeal No.21/2013, whereby the petitioners were convicted for offence under Section 294 of IPC and sentenced to undergo two month R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- and u/S.325/34 of the IPC sentenced to undergo one years R.I. with fine of Rs.1000/- and u/S.427 of the IPC and sentence to undergo six months with fine of Rs.1000/-in default of payment of fine they were to further undergo 15 months R.I. 2. Brief facts necessary for elucidation are that the complainant Babulal was the member of Gram Panchayat and on the date of incident i.e.07.02.2011 he went to visit the road which was constructed under the Rojgar Guarantee Yojana. The petitioners, who were also the members of the Gram Panchayat, abused the complainant Babulal in filthy language and asked him as to why he did not come when called and assaulted him, due to which complainant Babulal received injuries on the face and nose. The petitioners threatened to the complainant to kill him and destroy his motorcycle also. The FIR was lodged at police Station Dhar at Crime No.108/2011. Upon the complaint of the complainant a case was registered against the petitioners. After framing of charge and recording of evidence, petitioners were convicted and the conviction has been upheld by the Appellate Court, however, it reduced the sentence from two years to one year for offence under Sections 325 read with 34 of the IPC and for offence under Section 427 of the IPC only fine of Rs.1000/- as been imposed and for offence under Section 294 of the IPC only fine of Rs.500/- has been imposed as stated above. Being aggrieved, however, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the matter and Counsel stated that both the Courts below have erred in convicting the accused petitioners, there was not sufficient evidence on record to sustain the conviction. Both the Courts below had failed to consider the fact that p.w 1 complainant Babulal has categorically stated that there was rivalry between the accused and him since his wife was a Sarpanch and there was dispute regarding the newly constructed road to be made by the village Panchayat. Both the Courts below had failed to consider the fact that p.w 1 complainant Babulal has categorically stated that there was rivalry between the accused and him since his wife was a Sarpanch and there was dispute regarding the newly constructed road to be made by the village Panchayat. 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 the fact that there are material omissions and contradictions in the testimony of the material prosecution witnesses. Both the Courts below had failed to consider the fact that p.w. 2 Mukesh, p.w. 3 Hariram, who were the eye witnesses had turned hostile in Court and not supported the prosecution case. Besides p.w.4 Dr. Borasi has opined that although there was injury on the nose and it was also not grievous in nature and as per X-ray, p.w.6 Dr. N.D. Saraf however, found that there was a fracture on the nose. Rest of the injuries were simple in nature and the complainant has already recovered. However, the prosecution has been unable to prove the offence under Sections 294, 325/34 & 427 of the IPC. Counsel also stated that the petitioners have already undergone custodial sentence of 20 days. Counsel prayed that the revision deserves to be allowed and the judgment of conviction deserves to be set-aside. In alternate Counsel has prayed that if the Court is satisfied regarding the conviction the custodial sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. 4. Counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the petitioners and stated 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. 5. 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 as well as the Appellate Court, I have no hesitation in upholding the conviction of the accused/petitioners for offence under Sections 294, 325/34 & 427 of the IPC. However, considering the fact that the petitioners are the young persons, aged 22 to 39 years respectively and the fact that the short sentence is involved and the fact that the petitioners have undergone some 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.2,500/-; each which shall be deposited by the accused/petitioners and paid to the complainant Babulal as compensation u/S.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. 6. With the aforesaid modification the revision is partly allowed to the extent herein above indicated. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned lower Court for compliance. Cc. as per rules.