JUDGMENT 1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'The Code') is directed against the judgment dated 22/01/2002 passed by Ninth Additional Sessions, District-Indore, in Sessions Trial No.01/2000, whereby each of the appellants has been convicted for offence punishable under Sections 324 of IPC, 1860 and sentenced to undergo 2 years R.I, with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and usual default stipulation. 2. Prosecution story in short is that on 01/07/1999 at about 6.00 am when complainant-Gangabai was alone in her house at that time appellants Ranchhod, Rama, Mohan and Gangaram armed with latti, dariya, iron rod and gupti entered into her house, knocked her down and shut her mouth. When complainant tried to escape then appellants Gangaram assaulted her with gupti as a result she sustained injury on her leg. Other accused persons also started assaulting Gangabai with their weapons and caused injuries to her. Complainant's daughter who was present there witnessed the incident and her aunt-in-law (mousi saas) came there and rescued her. Gangabai narrated the incident to the watchman and Sarpanch of the village. Thereafter, she along with the watchman went to Police Station Deplapur and lodged a complaint. On the basis of which FIR bearing Crime No.649/99 was registered against the appellants for offence under Sections 324, 323, 294, 354, 506 of IPC, 1860. Injured Gangabai was sent for medical examination. 3. During investigation Police visited the spot, prepared spot map and recorded the statement of the witnesses. The appellants were arrested. Complainant in her statement has deposed that the appellants committed rape upon her therefore, offence under Section 147, 148, 149 and 376 of IPC has been added. The appellants were sent for medical treatment. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellants for offence under Section 147, 148, 324/149, 354, 376(2)(g) and 506-II of IPC before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, District Indore, who committed the case to the Sessions Court and ultimately it was transferred to the Court of Ninth Additional Sessions Judge, Indore. 4. Appellants abjured their guilt and took a plea that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. However, they have not examined any witnesses in their defence. 5. 4. Appellants abjured their guilt and took a plea that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. However, they have not examined any witnesses in their defence. 5. Trial Court, after considering the submissions advance by the learned counsel for the parties and scrutinizing the entire evidence on record, acquitted the appellants for offence under Sections 147, 148, 354, 376(2)(g) and 506-II of IPC, 1860, however, convicted them for offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC, 1860 and sentenced to undergo 2 years R.I, with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and usual default stipulation. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has expressly gave up his challenge to the findings of the Court below so far as the conviction of the appellant is concerned. In other words, the learned counsel for the appellant accepted the finding of conviction passed against the appellant, however, he challenged the quantum of punishment (2 years R.I) alone. It is submitted that the appellants are poor labourers and are the sole bread earner of their respective families. Counsel assures that in future the appellants will not involve in such criminal activities. It is also submitted that having regard to all circumstances which resulted in appellants' conviction and further keeping in view the fact that the appellants were facing the trial for more than 20 years, appellant No.1-Ranchhod has already served more than 7 months of his jail sentence whereas appellant No.2-Rama, appellant No.3-Mohan and appellant No.4-Gangaram have served approximately 6 months of their jail sentence, respectively, therefore the term of imprisonment be reduced suitably and the fine amount may be enhanced. 7. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the appeal and argued that guilt of the appellants have been proved beyond reasonable doubt by overwhelming evidence, therefore, he prayed that the appeal of the accused/appellants be dismissed and judgment passed by the trial court be confirmed. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of entire record of the case. 9. The evidence of Gangabai (P.W.1) and eye witness Sangeeta (P.W.2) establishes the fact that the appellants- Ranchhod, Rama, Mohan and Gangaram had assaulted Gangabai by means of ' Dhariya', 'Gupti', iron angle and stick due to which she sustained injuries on her head, stomach, right hand and other parts of the body. The above evidence is amply corroborated by the evidence of Dr. The above evidence is amply corroborated by the evidence of Dr. Anchal Kumar Silawat (P.W.6), who on medical examination, found 9 injuries on the person of the complainant Gangabai out of which two injuries were caused by sharp cutting object and remaining injuries by hard and blunt object, however, Dr. Silawat has not given opinion regarding the nature of the injuries, therefore, the trial Court was of the view that the said injuries were simple in nature. Although there are some contradictions in the statement of Gangabai (P.W.1) and Sangeeta (P.W2), however, they are not so material on the basis of which the statement of the aforesaid witnesses could be discarded. In view of the above discussions, the evidence recorded by the trial Court holding the appellants guilty under Section 324 of IPC, 1860 did not call for any interference by this Court in the present appeal and therefore, the same is hereby affirmed. 10. Now the question arises as to whether the appellant's sentence should be reduced and if so, to what extent as urged by the learned counsel for the appellants. 11. So far as the period of sentence is concerned, it appears that the appellants have already remained in jail for more than six months during the remand and committal proceedings. Appellant-Ranchhod was again in custody since 26/12/2019 and he has approximately completed 8 months period in jail. The appellants did not have any criminal background and they have not been involved in any crime. In these circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by sending the appellants back to jail for serving out the remaining part of the jail sentence after about 21 years of the incident which had taken place in the year 1999. On due consideration of the aforesaid mitigating circumstances & facts of the case, the nature of the injuries caused to Gangabai, this Court is of the view that the jail sentence already undergone by the appellants would be sufficient punishment for the offence proved against them, however, the fine amount of Rs.1,000/- awarded by the trial Court is hereby enhanced to Rs.7,500/- against each of the appellants. Out of the enhanced fine amount Rs.15,000/- shall be payable to the injured complainant Gangabai as compensation under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C. In default of payment of enhanced fine amount, the appellants shall suffer further 3 months R.I. 12. Out of the enhanced fine amount Rs.15,000/- shall be payable to the injured complainant Gangabai as compensation under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C. In default of payment of enhanced fine amount, the appellants shall suffer further 3 months R.I. 12. Resultantly, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part to the extent mentioned herein-above. Appellant No.1- Ranchhod is in jail, he be released subject to depositing the enhanced fine amount. Appellant No.2 to 4 Rama, Mohan and Gangaram are in bail, their bail bonds are discharged, they are directed to deposit the enhanced fine amount before the trial Court within a period of 30 days from today. Registry is directed to make arrangements for issuance of suppression warrant against appellants. A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court along with record for information and compliance. 13. With the aforesaid modifications the criminal appeal No.261/2002 stands partly allowed and disposed of. Certified copy as per Rules.