JUDGMENT : Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J. 1. The appellants has preferred this Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 and the Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., 1908 against the same impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.08.2016, passed passed in Sessions Trial No.61/2016 by the 2 nd Additional Session Judge, Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.), by which the sole appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced as under : 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the appellants were initially charged under Sections 341, 294, 506-B, and 329/34 of the Indian Penal Code, and upon trial they were convicted and sentenced for the said offences, to which they had pleaded not guilty at the stage of framing of charge. According to the complaint lodged by Heera Lal (P.W.2), on 13.01.2016 at about 9:30 p.m., while he was travelling on a motorcycle with his friend Kanshiram towards Navagarh and had reached near the turn adjacent to the Navagarh Country-Made Liquor Shop, the appellants Panchram, Kirtan Lal, and Keshav wrongfully restrained him, demanded money for purchasing liquor, and upon his refusal, subjected him to abusive language, criminal intimidation, and physical assault with lathis and dandas; the incident was allegedly witnessed by Manharan and Munna, and the written report was registered as Ex. P-4. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined eight witnesses and produced several documentary exhibits, on the basis of which the learned trial court, after appreciating the evidence on record, delivered the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 31.08.2016 (Annexure A-1), whereafter the appellants deposited the fine amount as reflected in Annexure A-2. 3. After due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law in which the appellants abjured their guilt and entered into defence stating that he has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated. 4. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offences, prosecution/victim has examined as many as 08 witnesses and exhibited 12 documents and the appellants-accused in support of their defence they have exhibited two documents i.e. Ex.D- 1 & Ex.D-2 and have examined 01 witness and statements of the accused persons have been recorded under Section 313 of CrPC, 1973. 5. 5. The learned trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which the present appeal has been preferred. 6. Learned counsel for the accused persons, would submit that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellants for the offences under Sections 325/34 and 341 of I.P.C. and also looking to the contradictory statements of the prosecution witnesses, the appellant is liable to be acquitted on the basis of benefit of doubt. In alternative, he would further submit that, if the case of the prosecution is taken as it is, the appellants be sentenced to the period already undergone by him for the offences in question as the present appellants is in custody from 14.01.2016 to 19.03.2016 i.e. 65 days and, as such, the appeal deserves to be allowed in full or part. 7. Learned State counsel, would support the impugned judgment and submit that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offences beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants for the aforesaid offences. He would further submit that the manner in which the offences have been committed, as the appellants forcibly stopped Hiralal Kashyap on the way and demanded money for drinking liquor and when he did not give it, they abused him obscenely and threatened to kill him and then all of them, in a conspiracy, beat the victim with sticks/lathi and caused serious injuries to him, therefore, he is not entitled for any leniency and further, it is not a fit case where the appellants be sentenced for the period already undergone by him and, as such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 9. To base the conviction of the appellants, the trial Court has relied upon the statement of Dr. Shravan Doneria (AW-01) testified that on 13.01.2016 he medically examined Hiralal, who presented with multiple swellings and abrasions on various parts of his body, and upon X-ray examination, a fracture was detected between the elbow and wrist of his left hand; his reports were marked as Ex.P- 1 and P-2. Shravan Doneria (AW-01) testified that on 13.01.2016 he medically examined Hiralal, who presented with multiple swellings and abrasions on various parts of his body, and upon X-ray examination, a fracture was detected between the elbow and wrist of his left hand; his reports were marked as Ex.P- 1 and P-2. Supporting the prosecution case, Head Constable Arun Singh (AW-07) confirmed registration of the FIR (Ex.P-5) based on Hiralal’s written report (Ex.P-4), while Investigating Officer Ramkhilawan Sahu (AW-08) proved preparation of the site map (Ex. P-6) and seizure of sticks from accused Panchram and Keshav (Ex.P-7 and Ex.P-8), with no effective challenge raised in cross-examination. Defence Witness Harnarayan’s claim that Hiralal sustained injuries from a motorcycle fall and had falsely implicated the accused due to a village-level dispute was disbelieved, as he offered no prior statement to the police nor any credible basis for his assertions. From the consistent testimonies of prosecution witnesses, it emerged that although the accused wrongfully restrained Hiralal and assaulted him with sticks, the evidence did not establish that they attempted to extort property, thereby failing to satisfy the ingredients of Section 329 IPC; however, the grievous hurt caused stood proved under Section 325 IPC. Further, the unanimous evidence that the accused blocked Hiralal’s way and assaulted him near the liquor shop established the offence under Section 341 IPC. Conversely, the prosecution failed to prove the charges under Sections 294 and 506-B IPC, as no witness provided clear and specific evidence of obscene abuse or criminal intimidation. Consequently, the accused were acquitted of the offences under Sections 294 and 506-B IPC but convicted under Sections 341 and 325/34 IPC. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the order passed by the Court below. 11. The limited questions that arises for consideration in the present revision is whether the sentence imposed and the fine awarded by the Trial Court are appropriate in light of the facts and circumstances of the case, and whether the Court below erred in not exercising its jurisdiction under Section 357 Cr.P.C. to award compensation to the victim. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion and analysis, I am of the considered opinion that the conviction of the appellant for offence under Sections 325/34 and 341 of the IPC is well merited. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion and analysis, I am of the considered opinion that the conviction of the appellant for offence under Sections 325/34 and 341 of the IPC is well merited. It is admitted that the appellant has already undergone 65 days of actual imprisonment and the offence is not of grave nature. Sending the appellants back to prison would serve no further beneficial purpose and may hamper his rehabilitative prospects. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the age, conduct, nature of offence, and period already undergone, this Court finds it appropriate to modify the sentence to the period already undergone. 13. So far as the fine amount is concerned, the record reflects that although the Trial Court awarded a sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 325 IPC along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, the nature and gravity of injuries sustained by the complainant, particularly the fracture of the forelimb, coupled with the circumstances of the assault, require a more realistic and just approach in the matter of awarding compensation. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manohar Singh v. State of Rajasthan , (2015) 3 SCC 449 , has categorically held that Section 357 Cr.P.C. casts a duty upon the Courts to apply their mind to the question of awarding compensation, which is intended to reassure victims that they are not forgotten in the criminal justice system. It was held as under : “9. We find that the Court of Session and the High Court have not fully focused on the need to compensate the victim which can now be taken to be integral to just sentencing. Order of sentence in a criminal case needs due application of mind. The Court has to give attention not only to the nature of crime, prescribed sentence, mitigating and aggravating circumstances to strike just balance in needs of society and fairness to the accused, but also to keep in mind the need to give justice to the victim of crime. In spite of legislative changes and decisions of this Court, this aspect at times escapes attention. Rehabilitating victim is as important as punishing the accused. Victim's plight cannot be ignored even when a crime goes unpunished for want of adequate evidence.” 15. In spite of legislative changes and decisions of this Court, this aspect at times escapes attention. Rehabilitating victim is as important as punishing the accused. Victim's plight cannot be ignored even when a crime goes unpunished for want of adequate evidence.” 15. Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. High Court of Gujarat , reported in (1998) 7 SCC 392 , has held thus : “46. One area which is totally overlooked in the above practice is the plight of the victims. It is a recent trend in the sentencing policy to listen to the wailings of the victims. Rehabilitation of the prisoner need not be by closing the eyes towards the suffering victims of the offence. A glimpse at the field of victimology reveals two types of victims. The first type consists of direct victims i.e. those who are alive and suffering on account of the harm inflicted by the prisoner while committing the crime. The second type comprises of indirect victims who are dependants of the direct victims of crimes who undergo sufferings due to deprivation of their breadwinner. xxx xxx xxx 94. In recent years, the right to reparation for victims of violation of human rights is gaining ground. The United Nations Commission of Human Rights has circulated draft Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to Reparation for Victims of Violation of Human Rights. (See annexure)” 16. In Suresh v. State of Haryana , reported in (2015) 2 SCC 227 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus : “16. We are of the view that it is the duty of the courts, on taking cognizance of a criminal offence, to ascertain whether there is tangible material to show commission of crime, whether the victim is identifiable and whether the victim of crime needs immediate financial relief. On being satisfied on an application or on its own motion, the court ought to direct grant of interim compensation, subject to final compensation being determined later. Such duty continues at every stage of a criminal case where compensation ought to be given and has not been given, irrespective of the application by the victim. On being satisfied on an application or on its own motion, the court ought to direct grant of interim compensation, subject to final compensation being determined later. Such duty continues at every stage of a criminal case where compensation ought to be given and has not been given, irrespective of the application by the victim. At the stage of final hearing it is obligatory on the part of the court to advert to the provision and record a finding whether a case for grant of compensation has been made out and, if so, who is entitled to compensation and how much. Award of such compensation can be interim. Gravity of offence and need of victim are some of the guiding factors to be kept in mind, apart from such other factors as may be found relevant in the facts and circumstances of an individual case. 17. We are also of the view that there is need to consider upward revision in the scale for compensation and pending such consideration to adopt the scale notified by the State of Kerala in its scheme, unless the scale awarded by any other State or Union Territory is higher. The States of Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Meghalaya and Telangana are directed to notify their schemes within one month from receipt of a copy of this order. 18. We also direct that a copy of this judgment be forwarded to National Judicial Academy so that all judicial officers in the country can be imparted requisite training to make the provision operative and meaningful.” 17. Considering the severity of injuries, the socio-legal purpose of victim compensation, and the mandate laid down by the Supreme Court, this Court is of the opinion that the fine imposed by the Trial Court deserves to be enhanced to ensure just and proper compensation to the complainant/victim. 18. The fine imposed upon each of the accused persons is hereby converted into compensation and enhanced from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per appellant. Accordingly, the appellants are directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- each, aggregating to Rs.60,000/-, to the victim by way of compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The said amount shall be deposited before the concerned Trial Court within a period of eight weeks from the date of this order, failing which the appellants shall be liable to face the consequences in accordance with law. The said amount shall be deposited before the concerned Trial Court within a period of eight weeks from the date of this order, failing which the appellants shall be liable to face the consequences in accordance with law. Upon deposit, the entire amount of Rs.60,000/- shall be disbursed to the complainant/victim as compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. 19. Consequently, the appeal as well as revision is partly allowed . It is ordered that the conviction of the appellant under Sections 325/34 and 341 of the IPC is upheld; however, the sentence imposed by the Trial Court is modified and reduced to the period already undergone (65 days). The appellants are directed to deposit the fine amount to the tune of Rs.20,000/- for each of appellants before the concerned Trial Court within the above-stated period of time. 20. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted forthwith to the concerned trial Court for necessary information & action, if any.