JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 11.06.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Chittorgarh (for short 'the appellate court' hereinafter) in Cr. Appeal No.7/2001, whereby the appellate court has dismissed the said appeal and affirmed the order dated 22.01.2001 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in Cr. Case No.245/1993 (116/88), whereby the trial court has convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioners as under : Accused-Wazir Mohd. U/s 326 IPC : Two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2000/- in default of payment of fine, further to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment. Accused-Shafi Mohd. & Sher Mohd.-U/s 326/34 IPC : Two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default of payment of fine, further to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment. Accused-Wazir Mohd.-U/s 324 IPC : One year's rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, further to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment. Accused-Shafi Mohd. & Sher Mohd.-U/s 324/34 IPC : One year's rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default of payment of fine, further to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment. Accused-Shafi Mohd. & Sher Mohd.-U/s 323 IPC : Six months' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine, further to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment. Accused-Wazir Mohd.-U/s 323/34 IPC : Six months' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, further to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment. Accused-Wazir Mohd., Shafi Mohd. & Sher Mohd.- U/s 447 IPC : Six months' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine, further to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated facts, necessary for disposal of this revision petition, are that on 08.9.1988, PW.4 Karan Singh submitted a report at Police Station, Shambhupura, stating therein that on that day at about 2:00 P.M., Aziz Mohd. along with his three sons viz. Wazir Mohd., Sher Mohd. and Safi Mohd. and 5-6 persons came to his field having weapons with intent to take possession of his land forcibly. It is stated that Devi Singh, Karan Singh and Amar Singh are in possession of the said land from last more than 30 years and for the same land, a suit has been filed by Aziz Mohd. and Safi Mohd. and 5-6 persons came to his field having weapons with intent to take possession of his land forcibly. It is stated that Devi Singh, Karan Singh and Amar Singh are in possession of the said land from last more than 30 years and for the same land, a suit has been filed by Aziz Mohd. All the assailants, who were armed with guns and 'Dharias' had assaulted Natwar Sing with the intention to kill him, after receiving injuries, Natwar Singh shrieked and upon hearing his cries, Tej Singh, who was at Bhandaria Well, rushed to him, however, he was assaulted by the assailants. The assailants also assaulted Devi Singh and wife of Tej Singh. The complainant also stated that when he rushed to the scene of occurrence, all the assailants fled away. It is also stated that all the injured persons were sent to the Chittorgarh Hospital. 3. After receiving the aforesaid report, FIR No.50/1988 was registered at Police Station, Shambhupura for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 323, 324, IPC. The investigation was commenced. After completion of investigation, the police had filed the charge-sheet against the accused-petitioners before the trial court and the trial court framed the charges against them for the offences punishable under sections 326, 324, 323, 447 IPC. The accused-petitioners denied the charges and claimed trial. 4. During the course of trial, the prosecution, in support of its case, had produced as many as 14 witnesses and also got exhibited certain documents. The accused-petitioners got their statements recorded under section 313 CrPC. 5. The trial court after analysing the evidence adduced before it, has convicted the accused-petitioners as aforesaid vide impugned judgment dated 22.01.2001. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the appellate court, however, the appellate court while affirming the judgment of the trial court, has dismissed the appeal of the accused-petitioners vide impugned judgment dated 11.06.2003. Hence, this revision petition. 6. At the outset, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners has submitted that he does not want to challenge the conviction of the accused-petitioners passed by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court. However, in respect of the sentence awarded by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that accused-petitioner - Wazir Mohd. remained behind the bars for 101 days; accused-petitioner-Sher Mohd. However, in respect of the sentence awarded by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that accused-petitioner - Wazir Mohd. remained behind the bars for 101 days; accused-petitioner-Sher Mohd. for 58 days and Safi Mohd. remained behind the bars for 37 days. He, has therefore, prayed that the court may take a lenient view in the matter and the sentence awarded by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court may be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by them. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners has also submitted that the fine amount awarded by the trial court i.e. Rs.2000/-has already been deposited by the petitioners. He has further submitted that if this Court deems fit, the fine awarded by the courts below may be enhanced suitably. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the records of both the courts below, this Court is of the opinion that so far as conviction of the accused-petitioners for the aforesaid offences is concerned, it is well founded and the counsel for the petitioner has rightly not pressed this revision petition on merits. In view of this, it is not necessary to discuss the evidence at length. 9. So far as sentence awarded to the accused-petitioners by the trial court is concerned, I am of the opinion that after 28 years, it will be very harsh to send the petitioners behind the bars. The incident is of the year 1988 and as per the charge-sheets, the accused-petitioner-Wajir Mohd. was of 48 years, Sher Mohd. was of 40 years and Safi Mohd. was 36 years of age at the time of incident. After 28 years, the petitioners might have settled in their lives. Hence, looking to over all facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper to reduce the sentence of the petitioners to the period of imprisonment already undergone by them. However, the ends of justice would be met if the fine is enhanced to Rs.5000/- in addition to fine imposed by the courts below. 10. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. Conviction of the petitioners recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the appellant for the offence punishable under 324, 324/34, 323, 323/34 and 447 IPC is maintained. However, the ends of justice would be met if the fine is enhanced to Rs.5000/- in addition to fine imposed by the courts below. 10. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. Conviction of the petitioners recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the appellant for the offence punishable under 324, 324/34, 323, 323/34 and 447 IPC is maintained. However, the sentence awarded to the accused-petitioners is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by them. The fine imposed upon the petitioners is enhanced to Rs.5000/- in addition to fine imposed by courts below. The enhanced fine shall be deposited by the petitioners with the trial court within a period of four months from today. It is made clear that if the petitioners fail to deposit the enhanced fine amount as directed above within the time granted, they shall undergo six months' simple imprisonment. 11. The impugned judgments are modified accordingly. 12. Records of both the courts below be sent forthwith. *******