IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.663 of 2011 1. Harendra Singh, son of Late Dhurup Yadav Singh. 2. Hari Shankar Singh, S/o Harkhu singh. 3. Haribansh Singh S/o Ramroop Singh. 4. Mahesh Singh S/o Babunandan Singh. 5. Bharath Singh, s/o Ramdhari Singh. All are resident of village-Bhakuna P.S. Ara Muffasil, distt- Bhojpur. Versus The State Of Bihar ----------- 3 29.07.2011 The accused petitioners have preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 09.03.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge F.T.C III in Cr. Appeal No. 75 of 2006 by which the conviction and sentence under Sections 341 and 504 IPC have been set aside and the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court under Section 323 IPC has been upheld and the appeal has been dismissed. The L.C.R has been received and this petition is disposed of with the consent of both the parties at the admission stage itself. Heard Mr. Gopal Govind Mishra, the learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel for the State. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 17.09.2002 all the accused-appellants were abusing the mother of the informant which was protested by the informant, thereafter, the informant was assaulted with lathi and bhala blow which caused injury. There is land dispute between both the parties. There is counter version of this case also, the petitioner No. 1 Harendra Singh had also lodged a case i.e., Ara Muffasil P.S. Case No. 2 192 of 2002 against the informant of this present case and others for the offence and after trial the informant and others were convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 307/149 and 379 IPC vide judgment and order dated 28th April, 2006 passed in Sessions Trial No. 151 of 2003. After trial the petitioners were convicted under Section 323/34, 341/34 and 504/34 IPC and one month simple imprisonment under Section 341/34 and two year simple imprisonment under Section 504/34 IPC and directed the sentences to run concurrently. Thereafter, the petitioners filed Cr. Appeal No. 75 of 2006 against the appropriate order. In the appeal, the conviction under Section 341/34 and 504/34 IPC have been set aside and the conviction and sentence under Section 323/34 IPC has been confirmed by which they have been directed to serve the sentence of simple imprisonment for one year under Section 323 IPC imposed by the learned trial Court. There is no material in the record to show that the accused have any criminal antecedent. The petitioners have already been in imprisonment for about one month. Considering the facts and circumstances, the sentence which is imposed by the Court below to the petitioners is modified instead of sentencing the petitioners to undergo the imprisonment. It is appropriate to convert the sentence into fine. In the above facts and circumstances the sentence of imprisonment is modified and the petitioners are directed to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each instead of sentence within a period of one month. 3 With the aforesaid modification in the sentence this revision application is disposed of. Let copy of this order be sent to the trial Court through fax as prayed for at the cost of the petitioner. Prakash (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)