Mrs. Ranjana Pandya,J. 1. This revision has been preferred against the Judgment and order passed by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur City dated 30.4.1987 in Appeals No.90 of 1986 whereby the appellate court while dismissing the appeal, upheld the conviction of all the three accused but instead of sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 325 I.P.C. reduced the sentence to one year's rigorous imprisonment coupled with fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine, further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month, and also upheld the sentence of three months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 323 , accordingly, dismissed the appeals. 2. The accused Radhey Shyam and Tika have died during the pendency of the present revision. Thus, the revision is abated against the said accused. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 30.6.1976 at about 7.30 p.m., Bhagwandin, the father of the complainant Rajaram and Munni Lal, brother of the complainant, were returning home after doing the work. As soon as they reached near the house of Tula, the accused revisionist Radhey, Jhuri, Ram Bilas and Tikai assaulted both of them with lathi and dandas. On hue and cry being raised, Kunware, Tula and Sukkha reached the spot but the accused fled away. The bone of the father of the complainant was fractured and his brother Munni Lal sustained injuries. According to the complainant, he was having litigation with Ram Bilas, Jhuri and Radhey, which was decided in his favour due to which the accused persons, who were having inimical terms with the complainant, assaulted the father and brother of the complainant. 4. An oral report was lodged at about 12.20 a.m. in the night. The injured were medically examined and a case under Sections 323, 325 I.P.C. was registered against the accused persons. 5. After investigation charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons under Sections 323, 325 I.P.C. Charges under Sections 323, 325 I.P.C. were framed against the accused persons, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. During trial the accused Jhuri died. Thus, the case against him was abated. 7. The prosecution examined P.W.1-Dhani, P.W.2- Chhedi, P.W.3-complainant Rajaram, P.W.4-Bhagwandin, P.W.5-Radeologist B.S. Matreja, P.W.6- Investigating Officer S.I. Kailash Nath Mishra, P.W.7-Vijai Singh. 8. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The statements of D.W.-1 Chhidammi Lal and D.W.-2 Ram Bhajan were recorded. 9. During trial the accused Jhuri died. Thus, the case against him was abated. 7. The prosecution examined P.W.1-Dhani, P.W.2- Chhedi, P.W.3-complainant Rajaram, P.W.4-Bhagwandin, P.W.5-Radeologist B.S. Matreja, P.W.6- Investigating Officer S.I. Kailash Nath Mishra, P.W.7-Vijai Singh. 8. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The statements of D.W.-1 Chhidammi Lal and D.W.-2 Ram Bhajan were recorded. 9. After hearing both the parties and perusing the evidence on record, the learned lower court convicted the accused Radhey Shyam, Ram Bilas and Tikai under Section 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. for three months' imprisonment each and further convicted them under Section 325 read with Section 34 I.P.C. for two years' rigorous imprisonment each coupled with hundred rupees fine with default clause. 10. Feeling aggrieved the accused filed Appeal No. 91 and 90 both of year 1986, which passed the impugned order as enunciated above. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. 12. Perusal of the Judgment of the trial court record shows that the the injured sustained injuries. It has been argued on behalf of the counsel for the revisionist there was no public independent witness in the case who supported the story of the prosecution. All the witnesses examined are interested witnesses, who cannot be relied upon. I think this ground that witnesses are related cannot be sole ground to discard the evidence of the related witnesses. No doubt enmity is a double edged weapon which works both ways. If enmity could be the reason for false implication then it could also be a ground for assaulting the complainant's father and brother. Thus, on this aspect every case has to be adjudged independently. Bhagwandin, father of the complainant and Munni Lal, brother of the complainant had sustained injuries. The accused revisionist has tried to explain the injuries by stating that the injuries were sustained by the injured by fall while doing construction work. Although the two defence witnesses were examined but this is not reasonable and plausible explanation because, in the present case, the injuries are not of such a nature which can be sustained by fall while doing construction work. 13. There is no explanation why revisionists Ram Bilas, Tikai were falsely implicated. Bhagwandin was cross-examined by a lengthy cross-examination but his statement does not suffer from any major contradiction which may damage the prosecution case. 13. There is no explanation why revisionists Ram Bilas, Tikai were falsely implicated. Bhagwandin was cross-examined by a lengthy cross-examination but his statement does not suffer from any major contradiction which may damage the prosecution case. Thus, the testimony of this witness remains unshattered. Although injured Munni Lal has not been examined in the case but this would not be a sole ground to discard the testimony of other injured witness whose presence on the spot is not doubtful. Independent witness Dhani and Chhedi Ram were examined, who are said to have seen the occurrence, but they did not support the prosecution version. 14. The medical reports were proved by secondary evidence and although X-ray plates were not produced before the trial court. The medical evidence coupled with statements of the witness makes it crystal clear that the case stood proved. 15. In this regard Section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code may be taken into account, which reads as under:- "357. Order to pay compensation.-( 1) When a Court imposes a sentence of fine or a sentence ( including a sentence of death) of which fine forms a part, the Court may, when passing judgment order the whole or any part of the fine recovered to be applied- ( a) in defraying the expenses properly incurred in the prosecution; ( b) in the payment to any person of compensation for any loss or injury caused by the offence, when compensation is, in the opinion of the Court, recoverable by such person in a Civil Court; ( c) When any person is convicted of any offence for having caused the death of another person or of having abetted the commission of such an offence, in paying compensation to the persons who are, under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 ( 13 of 1855), entitled to recover damages from the person sentenced for the loss resulting to them from such death; ( d) When any person is convicted of any offence which includes theft, criminal misappropriation, criminal breach of trust, or cheating, or of having dishonestly received or retained, or of having voluntarily assisted in disposing of, stolen property knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen, in compensating any bona fide purchaser of such property for the loss of the same if such property is restored to the possession of the person entitled thereto. ( 2) If the fine is imposed in a case which is subject to appeal, no such payment shall be made before the period allowed for presenting the appeal has elapsed, or if an appeal be presented, before the decision of the appeal. ( 3) When a Court imposes a sentence, of which fine does not form a part, the Court may, when passing judgment order the accused person to pay, by way of compensation such amount as may be specified in the order to the person who has suffered any loss or injury by reason of the act for which the accused person has been so sentenced. ( 4) An order under this section may also be made by an Appellate Court or by the High Court or Court of Session when exercising its powers of revision. ( 5) At the time of awarding compensation in any subsequent civil suit relating to the same matter, the Court shall take into account any sum paid or recovered as compensation under this section." 16. Thus, there is concurrent findings of both the courts, i.e., the trial court and the appellate court that the charges against the accused persons have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, I do not think that there is any ground to interfere with the conviction of the accused persons. However, having regard to the injuries, the nature of the case and the time since when this matter is pending, i.e. the year 1987 before this Court, I think the conviction of accused Ram Bilas needs to be sustained but in stead of imprisonment, he may be punished with fine and out of the fine the complainant may be paid some amount to compensate the complainant. 17. Accordingly, the revision dismissed subject to these modifications. 18. The conviction of the accused Ram Bilas is upheld. 19. I think the sentence under Section 325 & 323 I.P.C. needs reduction. Thus, the accused is sentenced to three months' simple imprisonment under Section 325 I.P.C. coupled with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, he will further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. As far as Section 323 is concerned, the accused is sentenced to pay a fine to the tune of Rs.2000/-. Thus, the accused is sentenced to three months' simple imprisonment under Section 325 I.P.C. coupled with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, he will further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. As far as Section 323 is concerned, the accused is sentenced to pay a fine to the tune of Rs.2000/-. In case he fails to deposit the fine within one month from the date of the Judgment, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The imprisonment already undergone by the accused will be set off as per rules. An amount of Rs.1000/- each will be paid as compensation to both the injured person out of the fine deposited by the accused. The learned trial court shall see that the sentence is executed as per law.