( 1. ) THIS criminal revision impugns the judgment dated 19-12-95 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sidhi in Criminal Appeal No. 9/93, whereby order of conviction of all the applicants under Sections 325/149 and 147, IPC has been affirmed, but while not interfering with a sentence of six months R. I. each under Section 147, IPC, the learned Appellate Court has reduced the sentence of one year R. I. under Sections 325/149, IPC to six months R. I. each. However, the fine amount of Rs. 100/- each, thereunder, has been maintained

( 2. ) AS per narration of facts on record, the incident took place on 5-2-86 at 9 oclock over possession of a disputed land amongst three real brothers namely, accused Yagyasharan (since released on probation) and injured witnesses, Ramvishal (P. W. 1) and Ramsakha (P. W. 2 ). Brijesh (applicant No. 3) is son of accused Yagyasharan and other accused, namely Ram Govind (applicant No. 1), Sambhoo Prasad (applicant No. 2) and Awadhlal (since released on probation) are his brothers-in-law. On the date of occurrence, as per proseuction case, accused applicants were harvesting crops which was prevented by the complainant side. It infuriated the accused who grappled with and assaulted Ramvishal (P. W. 1) and Ramsakha (P. W. 2 ). Under the circumstances, on the FIR (Ex. P-1) of Ramvishal (P. W. 1), prosecution machinery was set at motion and after investigation, the accused-applicants were put on trial under Sections 147, 323, 324 and 325/149, IPC.

( 3. ) ON a proper appreciation of evidence on record, the Trial Court acquitted the accused of the charges under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 149, IPC but convicted them under Sections 147 and 325 read with Section 149, IPC. Accordingly, under Sections 325/149, IPC, the applicants herein were sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rupees one hundred each and under Section 147, IPC, six months rigorous imprisonment each. However other accused namely Yagyasharan and Awadhlal were given benefit of probation, therefore, not visited with said sentence. In the appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Sidhi, conviction of the accused-applicants under Sections 325/149 and 147, IPC was maintained with modification of sentence as above. Hence this criminal revision.

( 4. ) HEARD Shri P. R. Bhave, learned Counsel for the applicants and Smt. Chanchal Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the State and perused the records.

( 5. ) SHRI Bhave, learned Counsel for the applicants, contended that both the sides are closely related and the incident had originated in a dispute over a family land. Shri Bhave argued that though the applicants had raised a plea of self-defence before the Courts below, it was not properly appreciated and rejected sans substance. Mr. Bhave submitted that it is an incident of 5-2-86 and now since a period of more than 16 years has passed, the Court may take a lenient view in the matter of sentence, as this Court in similar circumstances, in other cases sentenced the accused to the periods already undergone and increased the fine amounts. Mr. Bhave, in support of his last submission relied on the judgment of this Court in the matter of Vijay Singh v. State of M. P. , 1994 (II) MPWN (Note 77) page 98. In this matter the applicant was tried along with 8 others for causing assaults on Hamansingh (P. W. 1) resulting in fracture of his nasal bone. The applicant was convicted under Section 325, IPC and sentenced to undergo R. I. for four months. On appeal, the conviction and sentence was affirmed. In revision before this Court, though the conviction of the applicant under Section 325, IPC was maintained, but the sentence was modified to the period of 20 days already undergone by the applicant. Further he was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- within a period of one month.

( 6. ) MR. Bhave placed further reliance on another judgment of this Court in the matter of Havaldar Singh v. State of M. P. , 1995 (I) M. P. W. N. (Note 194) pag