JUDGMENT Ravindra Singh, J.
1. Criminal Revision No. 733 of 1986 and Criminal Revision No. 715 of 1986 are filed against a common judgment; therefore, both the revisions are being decided by a common judgment.
2. Criminal Revision No. 733 of 1986 has been preferred by revisionists Anant Ram and Babu Ram and the Criminal Revision No. 715 of 1986 is preferred by revisionists Ram Lakhan, Ashok, Babu son of Jaisi Ram, Babu son of Kallu Teli and Ram Charan, against a common judgment and order dated 15.5.1986 passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1986 whereby the appeal was dismissed by upholding the judgment and order of conviction dated 9.1.1986 passed by the learned C.J.M., Etawah in Criminal Case No. 645 of 1983 whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced for a period of 1 year R.I. under Section 147 I.P.C., 6 months R.I. under Section 323/149 I.P.C. and 2 years R.I. under Section 324 read with Section 149 I.P.C.
3. It was also ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently. It is reported by the C.J.M., Etawah vide his letters dated 5.11.1983 and 5-10,2005respectively that the revisionists Babu son of Jaisi Ram and Anant Ram have died, therefore, the revisions filed by them are abated.
4. Heard Sri Dileep Kumar, Kamal Krishna and Sri V.C. Mishra learned Counsel for the revisionists and the learned A.G.A. Learned counsels for the revisionists do not want to press the revisions on its merit. Both the revisions are being pressed on quantum of sentence only.
5. To consider the quantum of sentence awarded by the trial courts which have been confirmed by the appellate court, it is necessary to consider the nature and gravity of the offence.
6. According to prosecution version first informant Radhey Shyam and co-accused persons were residing in the same village. There was a dispute between the parties over a public path going on between the buildings of accused Ram Lakhan and witness Ram Narain. A clay was collected on that path over removal of the said clay accused Ram Lakhan and witness Ram Narain were quarrelling on 7.8.1982 at about 9,00 a.m. First informant Radhey Shyam intervened in the said quarrel which was not relished by revisionist Ram Lakhan. Consequently, Ram Lakhan and his son Ashok Kumar called accused Babu son of Jaisi Ram, Bateshwari, Babu son of Kallu, Babu son of Chhakauri , Anaht Ram, Ram Charan and Bhagwan. They caused injuries on the person of injured Radhey Shyam by using blows of kicks, fists, danda and knife. It is also alleged that the injured Radhey Shyam had been the witness against accused Ram Lakhan in an offence under Section 396 I.P.C. Injured Radhey Shyam has received 8 injuries in which injury No. 1 was incised wound over the lateral side, on left middle elbow joint. Injuries No. 2 to 7 were contusions and injury No. 8 was complaint of pain on right thigh, right leg, left leg and right forearm. All the injuries were simple in nature and were on non vital part of the body. According to statement of P.W. 1 Radhey Shyam accused Ram Lakhan , Babu Kumhar were armd with danda and accused Ashok was armed with knife. The remaining accused persons caused injuries by kicks and fists.
7. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the revisionists that the revisionists have remained in jail for about 10 days to serve the sentences. The alleged occurrence had taken place on 7.8.1982, more than 23 years have been passed after the alleged occurrence. In such a long span of period the circumstances would have been changed and bitterness between the parties would have come to an end. The alleged occurrence had taken place in a sudden quarrel. The injuries received by the injured were simple in nature and were not on vital part of the body. In such circumstances it will not be proper to send the revisionists in jail again after expiry of such a long period to serve the remaining period of the sentences, therefore, a lenient view may be taken in awarding the sentences by modifying the same into fine.
8. I agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionists because the evidence shows that the alleged occurrence had taken place in a sudden quarrel. It was not pre-intended. The injuries received by the injured were 8 in number. All the injuries were simple in nature and were on non vital part of the body in which total 8 accused persons were implicated and period of 23 years have been passed from the alleged occurrence. The bitterness would have come to and end, therefore it will be proper to meet the ends of justice that the sentence awarded by the trial court may be modified.
9. In the result, the revision is partly allowed and the order of the conviction passed by the trial court and appellate court against the revisionists are upheld, but so for as sentences of the revisionists Babu Ram son of Chhakauri, Ram Lakhan, Ashok, Babu son of Kallu Teli and Ram Charan are concerned their sentence is modified to the extent that they are sentenced under Section 147 for a period already undergone and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each in lieu of remaining unserved period of sentence, under Section 323 read with Section 149 I.P.C. for a period already undergone and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- each in lieu of remaining unserved period of sentence and under Section 324 read with Section 149 I.P.C. for a period already undergone and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each in lieu of remaining unserved period of sentence as awarded by the courts below. The amount of fine shall be deposited within four months from today. In default of payment of fine the each revisionists shall have to serve the sentences as awarded by the courts below.
10. The revisionists are on bail. They need not surrender. Their sureties are discharged and bail bonds are cancelled.
11. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the learned CJ.M. concern for its compliance.