JUDGMENT Ravindra Singh, J.
1. This revision has been preferred by the revisionists Latoori Prasad, Harish Kumar, Rajeev Kumar and Girish Kumar against the judgment and order dated 31.8.1987 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh in Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 1987, whereby the appeal was dismissed and confirmed the judgement and order dated 31.3.1987 passed by the learned 2nd Assistant Sessions Judge, Aligarh in S.T. No. 437 of 1985, whereby each of the revisionists were convicted under Section 308 read with Section 34 and Section 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The revisionists Latoori Prasad, Harish Kumar and Girish Kumar were convicted under Section 308/341 I.P.C. and sentenced for a period of 3 years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and they have been sentenced for a period of three months simple imprisonment under Section 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. In default of payment of fine each of the revisionists was sentenced to further undergo one month R.I. It was further ordered that Rs. 1000/- from the aforesaid realized amount shall be paid to the first informant (injured) as a compensation but the revisionist Rajeev Kumar was released on probation.
2. Heard Sri A.B.L. Gaur, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mai Prakash Pandey learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned A.G.A.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionists states that he do not want to press the revision on its merit. The present revision is being pressed on the quantum of sentence only.
4. The period of probation has been passed peacefully by the revisionist Rajeev Kumar therefore, it has become infructuous for the revisionist Rajeev Kumar. To consider the quantum of sentence awarded by the trial court which has been confirmed by the appellate court, it is necessary to consider the manner, nature and gravity of the offence.
5. From the perusal of the record it appears that in the present case the alleged occurrence has taken place on 4.3.1984 at about 11.00 a.m. The allegation against the revisionists is that they caused injuries on the person of the first informant Sohan Lal by using lathi, danda and sariya blows. The other injured Rakesh Kumar who came in rescue of injured Sohan Lal he was also beaten by same weapon, consequently, both the persons have received injuries, but at the stage of trial it was alleged by the witnesses that the injuries were caused by danda, sariya and hockey blows. The weapon hockey was introduced subsequently in causing the injuries. It has also come in the evidence that both the parties are next door neighbours and the alleged occurrence had taken place in a sudden quarrel over a issue of fall of water in the courtyards of the accused persons and the first informant's house. The injured Sohan Lal has received 4 injuries and injured Rakesh Kumar has received 5 injuries. It has also come in the evidence that in that quarrel both the parties have received injuries and from both the sides the F.I.Rs. were registered and in the same incident the revisionist Latoori Prasad received injuries and there was fracture of proximal phalynx of little finger of right hand also.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the revisionists that in the present case the alleged occurrence has taken place on 4.3.1984. After the alleged occurrence a period of 21 years has been passed and after such a span of period it would not be proper to send the revisionists No. 1, 2, and 4 to jail, again. They have already undergone a period of two months and they are lather and sons and it is their first criminal case in which they have been involved. After expiry of such long period the circumstances, would have been entirely changed and due to that quarrel bitterness caused between the parties would have come to an end. If the aforesaid revisionists are again send to jail it would further develop the bitterness between the parties. It is further contended that the alleged occurrence had taken place in sudden quarrel. It was not pre-intended and in the said quarrel both the parties have received injuries and from both the sides F.I.Rs were registered.
7. I agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the revisionists, it will meet the end of justice if the sentence awarded by the courts below are modified. The trial court convicted the revisionist No. 3 Rajeev Kumar but he was given benefit of the provision of Section 4(2) of the U.P. Offenders Probation Act and he was released on probation for period of one year, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties. The probation has already expired. Therefore, no order is required to be passed in respect of the revisionist No. 3 Rajeev Kumar.
8. 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 is upheld, but so for as sentences awarded to the revisionist No. 1 Latoori Prasad, revisionist No. 2 Harish Kumar and revisionist No. 4 Girish Kumar are modified to the extent that they are sentenced under Section 308 read with Section 34 I.P.C. for a period already undergone and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each for remaining unserved period of sentence in addition to fine already awarded by the courts below and under Section 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. for a period already undergone and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each for remaining unserved period of sentence in addition to fine already awarded by the courts below. The amount of fine shall be deposited within three months from today. From the amount of fine, so deposited, Rs. 2000/- shall be paid as compensation to the first informant Sohan Lal.
9. The revisionists arc on bail. They need not surrender. Their sureties are discharged and bail bonds are cancelled.
10. The office is directed to communicate this order to the C.J.M. Aligarh for its compliance.