JUDGMENT Goverdhan Bardhar, J. Heard the learned counsels for the parties. Offence Sentence awarded by the trial court U/S. 323 IPC To undergo 6 months' simple imprisonment U/S. 324 IPC To undergo one year's simple imprisonment US. 326/r/w 34 IPC To undergo 2 years' simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. The sentences awarded to accused-petitioner Nos. 2 to 4, namely, Bishna Ram, Tara Chand @ Tara & Madan Lal are as under: Offence Sentence awarded by the trial court U/S. 323 IPC To undergo 6 months' simple imprisonment U/S. 324 IPC To undergo one year's simple imprisonment US. 326/r/w 34 IPC To undergo 2 years' simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. 2-3. As per the case set up by the prosecution, on 20.5.1988, the complainant's father was going for the call of nature and when he reached at the place where his crop was lying, accused-persons, namely, Tara Chand, Madan Lal, Bishna Ram and Jetha Ram were standing there. Accused Tara and Madan Lal were having lathies in their hands. They stated why he has spread his crop for threshing on their plot and after some hot arguments, all the four accused-persons inflicted injuries on complainant's father. When the complainant came to rescue, accused Jetha Ram also caused sharp edged injuries on him one due to which his little finger was cut. 4. After investigation, the police filed challan against the accused-petitioners for offences under Section 326, 324, 323/34 I.RC. 5. After hearing the arguments and considering the material on record, the learned trial court framed charges against accused Jetha Ram for offences under Sections 323, 324, 326 IPC and against accused Tara Chand, Madan Lal, & Bishna Ram under Sections 323, 324, 326 read with Section 34 IPC, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. At the trial, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses in support of its case. The accused in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegations levelled against them and examined one witness in their defence. 7. 6. At the trial, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses in support of its case. The accused in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegations levelled against them and examined one witness in their defence. 7. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide judgment and order dated 23.10.1991 convicted the accused-petitioner Jetha Ram for offences under Sections 323, 324, 326 IPC and accused-petitioners Bishna Ram, Tara Chand and Madan Lal under Sections 323, 324, 326 read with Section 34 IPC. 8. Being aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the petitioners preferred appeals before the learned Sessions Judge No.1, Sri Ganganagar, who by his judgment dated 06.10.1997 upheld the conviction of the petitioners recorded by the learned trial court, as aforesaid. Hence, this revision. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the conviction of the petitioners in this case is absolutely unwarranted. There was no common intention to cause any grievous injury to the injured person. It is further contended that there is delay in filing the FIR. The incident in present case is started to be of 20.05.1988, whereas the FIR was lodged on 15.6.1988. The learned counsel for the petitioners therefore, prayed for their acquittal of the aforesaid offences. In the alternative, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded to the petitioners be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 9. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned PP submitted that there is no occasion either to interfere with the concurrent findings and the sentence awarded to the accused petitioners by the learned Court below nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case. 10. I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgments passed by both the trial courts regarding conviction of the accused-petitioners. 11. In view of over all facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the Courts below have appreciated the evidence which came before them in proper and correct perspective and there is no reason to interfere with the said findings of Courts below and set aside the conviction recorded by the learned Courts below. 11. In view of over all facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the Courts below have appreciated the evidence which came before them in proper and correct perspective and there is no reason to interfere with the said findings of Courts below and set aside the conviction recorded by the learned Courts below. The conviction of the petitioners recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the trial court is confirmed and upheld. 12. However, taking into account the fact that the incident is of the year 1988, which took place all of a sudden without pre-meditation and the petitioners had remained in custody for (?) months 13 days, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial court and affirmed by the s appellate court is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioners. 13. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of accused-petitioners for offences under Sections 323, 324, 326 & 326/34 IPC, their sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. However, the fine of Rs. 100/ imposed by the learned court below shall stand increased to Rs. 2,500/- each, upon same conditions imposed by the learned trial Court in case of default of payment of fine. The said amount of fine shall be deposited in the trial Court within a period of 90 days which may be paid to the injured Pema Ram.