JUDGMENT 1. - Accused-petitioner has preferred this criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. to challenge the impugned judgment dated 26.08.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Chittorgarh (for short, 'learned appellate Court'), whereby learned appellate Court has affirmed the judgment dated 21.04.2000 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh (for short, 'learned trial Court') convicting the present petitioner for offences under Section 326, 324 and 452 IPC. Learned trial Court, while convicting the petitioner for the aforesaid offences, handed down following sentences:- S.No. Under Section Sentence Fine In default of payment of fine 1 326 IPC Three years Rigorous Imprisonment 5000/- Two months simple imprisonment 2 324 IPC One year Rigorous Imprisonment 1000/- Two months simple imprisonment 3 452 IPC One year Rigorous Imprisonment 1000/- Two months simple imprisonment 2. Challenge laid to the said verdict of the learned trial Court at the behest of accused-petitioner proved abortive as the appeal was also dismissed by the appellate Court and therefore, in that background, the petitioner has invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 3. The facts apposite for the purpose of this revision petition are that complainant-Chagan Lal divulged oral information (Ex.P/2) on 28.06.1993 to Police Station, Parsoli, District Chittorgarh alleging serious allegations against the present petitioner and seven other incumbents including three ladies. The oral information furnished by the complainant was jotted down and FIR (P/3) was registered. 4. After investigation, Police submitted charge-sheet before the learned trial Court against five persons including the petitioner. During investigation, Police has not found anything against three ladies. In the charge-sheet, charges under Sections 326, 324, 452, 148, 149 IPC were attributed against the present petitioner and four other incumbents. 5. Learned trial Court framed charges against all the accused persons including the petitioner and all of them denied charges and therefore, they were put to trial. 6. For proving charges against the accused persons, prosecution examined 12 witnesses including Doctor. Later on statements of all the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 7. Learned trial Court, thereafter, heard final arguments and by its judgment dated 21.04.2000 acquitted all the accused persons barring the petitioner and the petitioner was indicted for offences under Sections 326, 324 and 452 IPC. After holding petitioner guilty, the punishment aforementioned were awarded to him. 8. Learned trial Court, thereafter, heard final arguments and by its judgment dated 21.04.2000 acquitted all the accused persons barring the petitioner and the petitioner was indicted for offences under Sections 326, 324 and 452 IPC. After holding petitioner guilty, the punishment aforementioned were awarded to him. 8. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned trial Court, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate Court but the appellate Court also dismissed the appeal by the impugned judgment and upheld the conviction of the petitioner recorded by the learned trial Court. 9. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner, Mr. M.K. Garg, submits that as a matter of fact there were similar allegations against the present petitioner as well as other accused persons and injured received only three injuries but both the Courts below have not appreciated this aspect of the matter while solely indicting the petitioner for offences under Section 326, 324 and 452 IPC. Mr. Garg further submits that as per the prosecution evidence, all the accused persons were well armed with lathies and sharp edged weapons but it is only the petitioner who has been singled out for his conviction under Section 326 IPC. Mr. Garg would contend that the incident took place in the year 1992 and since then almost two and a half decades have elapsed and therefore, the accused-petitioner deserves some reprieve in the matter of punishment. Learned counsel, Mr. Garg, while conceding on the indictment of the accused-petitioner for the aforesaid offences, submits that sentence awarded to him be reduced to the extent he has already undergone. It is also urged by the learned counsel that during pendency of the instant revision petition, the petitioner remained on bail and there is no adverse report about his character and antecedents in the interregnum period, therefore, it would be inappropriate to incarcerate the petitioner in jail after a lapse of more than 23 years. Lastly, learned counsel submits that at the time of occurrence of the incident, petitioner was 40 years of age and by now he has crossed the age of 65 years which is a relevant consideration and mitigating circumstance for reducing the sentence to the extent he has already undergone. 10. Per contra, Mr. Lastly, learned counsel submits that at the time of occurrence of the incident, petitioner was 40 years of age and by now he has crossed the age of 65 years which is a relevant consideration and mitigating circumstance for reducing the sentence to the extent he has already undergone. 10. Per contra, Mr. J.P. Bhardwaj, learned Public Prosecutor, has vehemently opposed the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that no interference with the impugned judgment is called for in view of concurrent finding about culpability by both the Courts below against the petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that petitioner has hardly remained in custody for fifteen days and therefore, it would not be appropriate to reduce the sentence. Lastly, learned counsel has urged that if any indulgence is granted to the petitioner in the matter of punishment then at least victim's family may be adequately compensated. 11. Heard, learned counsel for the parties, perused both the judgments of learned Court below and thoroughly scanned the record of the case. 12. Upon examining the matter, in its entirety, it clearly and unequivocally reveals that the complainant in the FIR has imputed against all the accused persons including the petitioner that they have attacked him with common object by use of sharp edged weapon, lathies etc. A bare reading of FIR makes it amply clear that although, the present petitioner is also attributed a role in aggression but no specific allegation is made against the present petitioner about his personal enmity with the complainant or that he has acted with vengeance. It is also noteworthy that upon appreciation of evidence, learned trial Court has acquitted the other accused persons and has simply singled out the present petitioner for conviction. Upon delving deep into the matter, it is clearly borne out that complainant has in fact involved the entire family of the petitioner and fortunately barring the petitioner, all were given reprieve by the learned trial Court by acquitting them. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstance of the instant case, the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner to grant some indulgence to the petitioner in the matter of punishment cannot lose sight of this Court, more particularly, while noticing following mitigating circumstance:- (1) The petitioner has already undergone sentence for fifteen days. (2) At present, the petitioner has crossed the age of 65 years. (2) At present, the petitioner has crossed the age of 65 years. (3) The occurrence of the incident relates to more than two decades back. 13. At this stage, it appears to be just and reasonable to accede to the alternative argument of the learned Public Prosecutor for making enhancement in the compensation amount to be awarded to the victims. The learned trial Court imposed fine of Rs.7,000/- against the petitioner and out of which Rs.3,000/- were ordered to be paid to the victim (complainant) as compensation and the said order is also affirmed by the appellate Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has informed that the petitioner has deposited 50% of the amount of fine. 14. In view of above discussion, the instant appeal is allowed in part and while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for offences under Sections 326, 324 & 452 IPC, the sentence awarded to him by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court is reduced to the extent he has already undergone. The fine imposed by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court is enhanced to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. The petitioner is directed to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.6,500/- before the learned trial Court within two months from the date of this order. Upon deposition of the amount aforesaid in total Rs.6,500/- be paid to the victim as compensation. Learned trial Court may issue notice to the victim for collecting the amount of fine as compensation and make sincere endeavour for disbursement of the amount at the earliest. *******