JUDGMENT : Nagarathna, J. - Leave granted. 2. The appellant-accused herein is aggrieved by the impugned judgement dated 22.01.2019 of the High Court of Madras convicting the appellant under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') and Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 (for short, 'TNPPDL Act') and thereby sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. On 31.01.2010, at approximately 8 a.m., the appellant was agitated by a bus - proceeding from Dharapuram to Erode - overtaking his car. The appellant forced the bus to stop by overtaking and stopping in front of it. Thereafter, the appellant got down from his car with a wooden log and proceeded to verbally and physically assault complainant-driver and the conductor of the bus. As a result, both the driver and conductor suffered simple injuries. As people in the vicinity intervened, the accused fled leaving the wooden log at the place of occurrence. The complaint registered by complainant-driver also noted that the appellant-accused broken the right side mirror of the bus. Having suffered injuries, the complainant-driver and conductor were taken to a government hospital where their statements and a written complaint were taken on the basis of which an FIR being No.95/2010 was registered with Kundadam Police Station, District Tiruppur under Sections 341, 394(b), 324, 506(ii) of the IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the TNDPPL Act. The Additional Sessions Court (FTC No.3), Dharapuram by judgment dated 26.05.2011 passed in Sessions Case No.120 of 2010 convicted the accused under Sections 324 and 341 of the IPC. For the offence under Section 324, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years and for the offence under Section 341 to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo one-week simple imprisonment. The appellant was also convicted for the offence under Sections 3 and 5 of the TNPPDL Act. While no separate punishment was imposed for the offence under Section 3(1), TNPPDL Act, the appellant was sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 5 of the TNPPDL Act. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the accused-appellant challenged the judgment of the trial court before the High Court of Madras in Crl. A. No.357/2011. While no separate punishment was imposed for the offence under Section 3(1), TNPPDL Act, the appellant was sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 5 of the TNPPDL Act. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the accused-appellant challenged the judgment of the trial court before the High Court of Madras in Crl. A. No.357/2011. The impugned judgment of the High Court, inter alia, has noted at paragraph 15 the opinion of the medical expert that the injuries suffered by the complainant-driver and conductor were simple in nature. However, to explain that Section 324, IPC is attracted in that instant case, the High Court also noted that it is common knowledge that death can be caused by a wooden log. Having found no grave inconsistency in the statements of witnesses or any discrepancy upon appreciation of evidence, the High Court confirmed the conviction of appellant under Section 324 IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the TNPPDL Act. However, the High Court reduced sentence for the offence under Section 5 of the TNPPDL Act to rigorous imprisonment of two years from three years, as imposed by the trial court. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned senior counsel for the respondent(s)-State and perused the material on record. 4. We find that the ends of justice would be met in the instant case by modifying the sentence imposed by the High Court while allowing the appeal filed by the appellant herein in- part. Consequently, taking note of the proviso to Section 5 of the Tamilnadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 and Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, we reduce the term of sentence imposed on the appellant herein from two years to the period already undergone, which is fourteen days. However, we find that the fine amount to be paid by the appellant herein shall be increased so as to commensurate with the sentence of rigorous imprisonment, from Rs.1,000/- as imposed by the trial Court and which was sustained by the High Court to Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) to be paid to each of the injured victims namely, the driver and conductor of the private bus. The fine amount shall be deposited by the appellant herein within a period of six weeks from today before the concerned Trial Court. The fine amount shall be deposited by the appellant herein within a period of six weeks from today before the concerned Trial Court. On such deposit being made, the Trial Court shall take steps to pay the fine amount to the two injured victims after due identification. 5. The appeal is allowed in-part and is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 6. In the event, the appellant does not comply with the aforesaid direction now issued by us, the appeal would stand dismissed confirming the judgment and sentence of the High Court of Madras passed in Crl.A.No.357 of 2011 dated 22.01.2019. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.