ORDER : K V ARAVIND, J. Heard Sri K. Anandkumar, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused and Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State. 2. The accused in C.C. No.1862/2010 has preferred this revision petition, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.02.2019 passed by the Court of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Gokak (for short, ‘the trial court’), convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 326 , 323, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (for short, ‘ IPC ’), as well as the judgment dated 25.11.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.54/2019 by the XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, sitting at Gokak (for short, ‘the appellate court’). 3. The case of the prosecution is that, on 08.10.2010 at about 3:00 p.m., PW.1 and her husband were residing in a hut situated on the land belonging to CW.4. The accused persons, alleging that PW.1 had taken away a pair of scissors belonging to them, picked up a quarrel with her. Accused No.1 is alleged to have assaulted PW.1 on the head with a stone, thereby causing grievous injuries. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are alleged to have assaulted her with hands and legs, sharing a common intention. Based on the report of the incident, marked as Ex.P1, an FIR was registered as per Ex.P6 for the offences punishable under Sections 326 , 323, 504, and 506 of IPC . After investigation, a charge sheet was filed for the aforesaid offences. The prosecution examined 09 witnesses, marked 06 documents as exhibits and produced 01 material object. 4. The trial court, upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, held that accused No.1 assaulted PW.1 with a stone, thereby causing grievous injuries and that accused Nos.2 and 3 assaulted her, resulting in simple injuries. In arriving at the said conclusion, the trial court placed reliance on the wound certificate marked as Ex.P5. It was further held that the injuries sustained by PW.1 were grievous in nature and that the accused had committed the offences punishable under the aforesaid sections. Accordingly, the trial court concluded that the prosecution had successfully proved the charges against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 5. It was further held that the injuries sustained by PW.1 were grievous in nature and that the accused had committed the offences punishable under the aforesaid sections. Accordingly, the trial court concluded that the prosecution had successfully proved the charges against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 5. The trial court sentenced accused No.1 to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC . Similarly, accused Nos.2 and 3 were each sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the said offence. Further, accused Nos.1 to 3 were each sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC . They were also each sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 504 read with Section 34 of IPC , and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC . 6. The accused preferred an appeal before the appellate court. Upon re-appreciation of the evidence and the findings recorded by the trial court, the appellate court modified the judgment and order. It confirmed the conviction of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 504 read with Section 34 of the IPC , and also confirmed the conviction of accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the IPC . However, the appellate court set aside the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC , and further set aside the conviction of accused Nos.2 and 3 for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the IPC . 7. However, the appellate court set aside the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC , and further set aside the conviction of accused Nos.2 and 3 for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the IPC . 7. The appellate court, based on the report of the Probation Officer, modified the sentence of accused No.1 and directed him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the IPC , and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 504 of the IPC . The fine imposed on accused No.1 was left unaltered. Exercising jurisdiction under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act , 1958 (for short, ‘the PO Act’), accused Nos.2 and 3 were released on probation for good conduct. 8. Sri K. Anandkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the alleged incident occurred on 08.10.2010 at about 3:00 p.m., whereas the complaint was lodged only on 12.10.2010. It is further submitted that PW.1- the injured was taken to the hospital on 10.10.2010 at 5:00 p.m. Though the incident is alleged to have occurred on 08.10.2010, the injured was taken for treatment two days later, and the complaint was lodged two days thereafter. The delay in lodging the complaint has not been explained either by PW.1 or by the prosecution. It is contended that such delay casts serious doubt on the prosecution's case and suggests that the injuries may not have been caused in the manner alleged. It is further submitted that there is a discrepancy between the nature of injuries as recorded in Ex.P1 and those noted in the medical certificate, which further raises doubt regarding the correctness of Ex.P1 and the prosecution’s version. It is also submitted that Ex.P1 is said to have been scribed by another person at the instance of PW.1, however, the said scribe has not been examined, thereby raising serious doubt about the genuineness and admissibility of Ex.P1. 9. Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State, submits that PWs.1 and 2 are eye-witnesses to the incident. PW.1 is the injured victim and PW.2 is her husband. 9. Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State, submits that PWs.1 and 2 are eye-witnesses to the incident. PW.1 is the injured victim and PW.2 is her husband. Both the trial court and the appellate court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, have recorded concurrent findings of fact. The learned Additional Government Advocate further submits that the delay in lodging the complaint has been satisfactorily explained. With these submissions, the learned Additional Government Advocate prays for dismissal of the revision petition. 10. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. 11. The case of the prosecution is primarily based on the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2, and the wound certificate marked as Ex.P5. PW.6, the treating doctor, was examined to prove the nature of the injuries. PW.5 is the father of accused No.1 and PW.2. PW.1 has deposed that accused No.1 inflicted injuries upon her. It is also evident from the record that there was a land dispute between the accused and PW.1. PW.1 further stated that she suffered an injury to her ear. The evidence of PW.1 is corroborated by the testimony of PW.2, who is her husband and also the brother of Accused No.1. PW.2 has likewise admitted to the existence of a land dispute between himself and accused No.1. Efforts at mediation through the elders of the family are stated to have failed. PWs.3 and 4 turned hostile but supported the prosecution to some extent. PW.5, the father of accused No.1 and PW.2, also turned hostile. PW.6, the treating doctor, issued the wound certificate marked as Ex.P5. As per the evidence of PW.6 and the details in Ex.P5, there was no fracture found on the chest. Injury No.1 was described as grievous in nature, while the remaining injuries were simple. However, upon an overall examination of the evidence of PW.1, PW.2, PW.6, and Ex.P5, the injuries appear to be simple in nature and do not constitute 'grievous hurt' as contemplated under Section 320 of the IPC . 12. The vehement contention of the petitioners regarding the delay in lodging the FIR is met by the evidence of PW.2, which indicates that the delay was occasioned due to the intervention of the elders, who attempted to resolve the dispute amicably. 12. The vehement contention of the petitioners regarding the delay in lodging the FIR is met by the evidence of PW.2, which indicates that the delay was occasioned due to the intervention of the elders, who attempted to resolve the dispute amicably. In light of the existing land dispute between the brothers, the possibility that elder members of the family or villagers attempted to dissuade PW.1 from lodging a police complaint against her own family members cannot be ruled out. 13. In the aforesaid circumstances, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The trial court and the appellate court, upon due examination of the evidence, have rightly arrived at the conclusion that the accused have committed the offences. 14. Upon confirmation of the conviction, the next aspect that requires consideration is the correctness of the sentence imposed. Both the trial court and the appellate court have held that accused No.1 has committed offences punishable under Sections 323 , 326 and 504 of the IPC . However, a perusal of Ex.P5 clearly reveals that the injuries sustained are not of such a nature as to satisfy the requirements of 'grievous hurt' under Section 320 of the IPC . Consequently, the conviction recorded under Section 326 of the IPC is not sustainable, as the essential ingredients of the said provision are not fulfilled. Insofar as the offence under Section 323 of the IPC is concerned, having regard to the nature of injuries and the findings recorded above, it is established that the injuries would attract the provisions of Section 323 of the IPC . 15. Insofar as the offence under Section 504 of the IPC is concerned, the essential ingredients include intentional insult with a view to provoke breach of the public peace or to commit any other offence. In the present case, the verbal exchange took place between two brothers and their respective family members. It is established that there existed a land dispute among the family members, and the quarrel was a consequence of such pre-existing dispute. The altercation appears to have arisen out of personal discord and not with the intent to insult or provoke breach of the public peace. Therefore, the requirements of Section 504 of the IPC are not satisfied. 16. It is established that there existed a land dispute among the family members, and the quarrel was a consequence of such pre-existing dispute. The altercation appears to have arisen out of personal discord and not with the intent to insult or provoke breach of the public peace. Therefore, the requirements of Section 504 of the IPC are not satisfied. 16. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 504 of the IPC are not satisfied. Accordingly, accused Nos.1 to 3 are acquitted of the said offence. 17. In view of the confirmation of conviction under Section 323 of the IPC , the question that arises for consideration is whether the sentence imposed by the appellate court warrants interference. The trial court had sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC , which was confirmed by the appellate court. It is pertinent to note that Section 323 of the IPC prescribes punishment with imprisonment, or fine, or with both. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused submits that the alleged incident arose out of an existing land dispute among family members and occurred during an exchange of words. It is contended that there was no intention on the part of the accused to cause any injury. It is further submitted that subsequent to the incident, the brothers and their respective family members have reconciled and are presently maintaining a cordial relationship. Learned counsel also submits that any imprisonment of accused No.1 at this stage would disturb the settled understanding among the family members. Considering the age of accused No.1 and the fact that he is the sole breadwinner of the family, it is prayed that the sentence be modified and confined to imposition of fine alone. 19. This Court finds merit in the submission advanced and is of the view that it warrants due consideration. 20. From the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, it is evident that the quarrel arose out of a pre-existing land dispute, and that accused No.1 and PW.2 are brothers, while PW.1 and accused Nos.2 and 3 are co-sisters. All the parties involved are members of the same family. 20. From the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, it is evident that the quarrel arose out of a pre-existing land dispute, and that accused No.1 and PW.2 are brothers, while PW.1 and accused Nos.2 and 3 are co-sisters. All the parties involved are members of the same family. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the confirmation of the sentence of imprisonment imposed on accused No.1 is likely to cause further disruption in the family appears to be well-founded. 21. It is also submitted by the learned Additional Government Advocate that, apart from the incident which forms the subject matter of the present petition, accused No.1 is not involved in any other criminal case. Considering the familial relationship between PWs.1 and 2 and the accused, this Court is of the view that a lenient approach is warranted. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on accused No.1 is liable to be modified by confining it to fine alone. An additional factor justifying such modification is the considerable lapse of time, the incident having occurred in the year 2010. In the opinion of this Court, enhancement of the fine would adequately meet the ends of justice. 22. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and in light of the foregoing discussion, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER i. The criminal revision petition is allowed-in- part. ii. Accused No.1 is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC and acquitted of the offence under Sections 326 and 504 of IPC . iii. Accused No.1 is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.20,000/-. In default of fine, accused No.1 shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. iv. Fine of Rs.20,000/- shall be deposited within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the said amount shall be paid electronically in favour of PW.1, after due identification. v. The amount if any, in deposit made by accused No.1, shall be adjusted towards fine amount. vi. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are hereby acquitted of all charged offences. vii. The bail bonds if any, stand cancelled. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court records along with copy of this order for further action.