ORDER 1. This criminal revision under section 397/401 of Cr.P.C has been preferred by the applicants assailing the appeal judgment dated 23.4.2024, passed by the VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Headquarter Waidhan, District Singrauli in Criminal Appeal No.48/2023 (Anil Kumar Verma and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh), whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.7.2023, passed by the JMFC, Waidhan, District Singrauli in RCT No.505251/2012 (State of Madhya Pradesh v. Anil Kumar Verma and Others) convicting the applicants for commission of offence under section 325 and 325/34 of IPC has been affirmed. 2. As per prosecution story, on 5.11.2012, at around 9:00 A.M., Govind Soni PW2, resident of Village Churki was being abused by Anil and his brother Rajneesh Kumar @ Bhole, when he asked them not to utter abusive words relating to mother and sister, they both assaulted him by means of wood-sticks causing injuries on his right hand and left hand. In the meantime, Bablu @ Ram Surat Yadav and Makhnu Yadav also reached there and abused and caused voluntary hurt to him causing injuries on his right hand, left hand and right side of head. Matter was pacified by Vinod Kumar Soni (PW4). They had threatened to do death also. On the basis of narration given by Govind Soni PW2, FIR Exhibit P/2 was taken down by the Head Constable Rajbhan. In the course of investigation, Sub Inspector B.N. Singh Chouhan (PW6) prepared Site Map (Exhibit P/3). He recorded the statements of injured and witnesses under section 161 of Cr.P.C. Arrested the applicants and prepared the arrest memos. After investigation, charge sheet was filed. 3. Learned trial Court framed the charges against the applicants/accused for commission of offence under section 294, 325, 325/34, 506 – II of IPC. The applicants/accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Learned trial Court after recording the evidence and hearing the parties convicted the applicant/accused Anil Kumar Verma for commission of offence under section 325 of IPC and rest of the accused for commission of offence under section 325/34 of IPC and sentenced as mentioned herein above. 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined six witnesses Shyamacharan Soni PW1, Govind Soni PW2, Dr. Rahul Singh PW3, Vinod Kumar Soni PW4, Santram Saket PW5 and Sub Inspector B.N Singh Chouhan PW6. Applicants/accused did not examine any witness in their defence. 5. 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined six witnesses Shyamacharan Soni PW1, Govind Soni PW2, Dr. Rahul Singh PW3, Vinod Kumar Soni PW4, Santram Saket PW5 and Sub Inspector B.N Singh Chouhan PW6. Applicants/accused did not examine any witness in their defence. 5. Applicants challenged the judgement of conviction and order of sentence by preferring the appeal, but the learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Waidhan, District Singrauli dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of conviction for commission of offence under section 325 and 325/34 of IPC. Hence, this revision. 6. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that he does not want to challenge the applicants’ conviction under section 325 and 325/34 of IPC. Applicants are in jail since 23.4.2024. They are first offender. They have already suffered about more than 2 month and 10 days incarceration. Therefore, it is prayed that applicants may be released by reducing the jail sentence to the period already undergone by them so far. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the findings recorded by the Courts below, but has fairly admitted that applicants are the first offenders. They have already suffered more than 2 months and 10 days jail sentence. Therefore, he has no objection if jail sentence of the applicants is reduced to the period already undergone by them. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Injured Govind Soni PW2 in his evidence has deposed that he knew applicants/accused well. On 5.11.2012, at around 8:00 – 9:00 A.M. accused Anil and his brother Rajneesh Kumar @ Bhole had abused him. When he had asked them not to abuse, they assaulted him by means of wood-sticks. He had sustained injuries on his head and right and left hand. Bablu @ Ram Surat Yadav and Makhnu Yadav had also caused grievous hurt to him by means of wood-sticks. They all had assaulted and caused grievous injuries to him. Matter was pacified by his brother Vinod Kumar Soni PW4. 10. The evidence of Govind Soni PW2 finds corroboration from the eye witnesses account of Vinod Kumar Soni PW4 and promptly lodged FIR Exhibit P/2. In medical examination, Dr. Rahul Singh PW3 had found swelling and lacerated wound on left hand and lacerated wound on the parietal bone of the injured. 10. The evidence of Govind Soni PW2 finds corroboration from the eye witnesses account of Vinod Kumar Soni PW4 and promptly lodged FIR Exhibit P/2. In medical examination, Dr. Rahul Singh PW3 had found swelling and lacerated wound on left hand and lacerated wound on the parietal bone of the injured. He had also found injuries on his right hand. According to Dr. Rahul Singh PW3, all injuries were caused by hard and blunt object within 4 to 36 hours of his examination. It is also the evidence of Dr. Rahul Singh PW3 that X-Ray was advised for injury No.1. In X-Ray examination, fracture was found on the left ulna radius of the left hand of the injured Govind Soni. He has proved MLC report Exhibit P/4, X-Ray report Exhibit P/5 and X-Ray plate Exhibit A/1. Thus, the evidence of Govind Soni PW2 is not only corroborated by the evidence of eye witness Vinod Kumar Soni PW4, but it also stands fortified by the medical evidence of Dr. Rahul Singh PW3 and promptly lodged FIR. 11. Therefore, I am of the view that learned Courts below have not committed any error in convicting applicant Anil Kumar Verma for commission of offence under section 325 of IPC and applicants Rajneesh Kumar, Ram Surat Yadav and Arya Prasad for commission of offence under section 325/34 of IPC. Hence, their conviction as recorded by the Courts below does not warrant interference and is hereby affirmed. 12. So far as quantum part of the jail sentence is concerned, applicants have already suffered 2 months and 10 days incarceration. They are first offender with no criminal background. Therefore, having taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case including the incarceration period already undergone by the applicants and the fact that incident took place almost 12 years ago, I am of the view that it is a case in which applicants’ jail sentence may be reduced from period of 1 year RI to the period already undergone by them so far by enhancing the fine amount from Rs.1000/- to Rs.4000/-. 13. Consequently, this revision is party allowed. Applicants’ jail sentence for commission of offence under section 325, 325/34 of IPC is reduced from 1 year RI to the period already undergone by them so far by enhancing the fine amount from Rs.1000/- to Rs.4000/. 13. Consequently, this revision is party allowed. Applicants’ jail sentence for commission of offence under section 325, 325/34 of IPC is reduced from 1 year RI to the period already undergone by them so far by enhancing the fine amount from Rs.1000/- to Rs.4000/. Applicants are directed to deposit the enhanced fine amount within one month from today before the trial Court. It is further directed that upon depositing the enhanced fine amount, an amount of Rs.4000/- as ordered by the trial Court be disbursed to the complainant injured Govind Soni as compensation under section 357(1) of Cr.P.C. 14. Registry is directed to prepare the super session warrant after complying with all the legal formalities. Superintendent, District Jail, District Singrauli is directed to release the applicants forthwith if they are not required in any other case. 15. A copy of the order along with trial Court record be sent down to the Court concerned, through Sessions Judge, Singrauli for necessary compliance and information. 16. Criminal Revision is allowed in part with the aforesaid modification.