JUDGMENT ORDER 1. The present appeal is filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the order of conviction and sentence dated 30.04.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Alot, Dist. Ratlam whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Accused Name Offence Sentence Fine (Rs.) In lieu of fine Jagdish 326 IPC 5 years RI 1000/- 3 months RI 25(1-B)(b) Arms Act 1 year RI 500/- 3 months RI Kamal 326/34 IPC 5 years RI 1000/- 3 months RI 2. As per prosecution case, appellant Kamal caused injury to Vikram on forearm of hand. This fact is proved by the testimony of Dr. Fulmbrikar (PW-7) and his report Ex.P/13. The injury has been found to be grievous in nature. So far the appellant No. 2 is concerned, he has found to cause injury to one Ramsingh. 3. It is alleged that the appellant No. 2 has caused injury on Ramlal which resulted into suppression of his left hand. The accused persons and the complainants are members of the same family. During trial, an application for compounding was filed by the legal heirs of Ramsingh and complainant Vikram, however, the offence being non-compoundable, the application was not accepted. 4. Counsel for the appellants submits that the appellant No. 2 Jagdish has already undergone jail sentence of 2 years 3 months 25 days and the appellant Kamal has also undergone jail sentence of about 4 months. The incident is said to have taken place in the year 2013 between the family members and application for compounding was also filed by the legal heirs of Ramsingh and complainant Vikram before the trial Court. No purpose would be served in sending the appellants to the jail at this stage. The relations between the family members are cordial and the dispute is amicably settled. The jail sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone and the fine amount may be enhanced which may be directed to be paid to the legal heirs of victim Ramsingh and victim Vikram. 5. Counsel for the State supports the order of conviction and sentence, however, does not dispute the fact of the jail sentence undergone by the appellants and the factum of compromise which has been referred in para-44 of the impugned judgment. 6. 5. Counsel for the State supports the order of conviction and sentence, however, does not dispute the fact of the jail sentence undergone by the appellants and the factum of compromise which has been referred in para-44 of the impugned judgment. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the incident had taken place in the year 2013 amongst the family members and the application for compromise was also filed, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellants is maintained. The jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. So far the appellant Jagdish is concerned, the fine amount is enhanced from Rs.1000/- to ANs.10,000/- and fine amount under Section 25(1-B)(b) of Arms Act is enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.2000/- and fine amount of appellant Kamal is increased from Rs.1000/- to Rs.10,000/-. The appellant Jagdish shall be released from jail after depositing the enhanced fine amount within one month from today and the enhanced amount shall be paid to the legal heirs of deceased victim Ramsingh and enhanced fine amount imposed on appellant Kamal shall be paid to the complainant Vikram by the trial Court. The bail bonds of the appellant Kamal shall be discharged after deposit of the enhanced fine amount within a period of one month from today. 7. With the aforesaid, the appeal is partly allowed and disposed off.