THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1082 OF 2011 DATED:19.07.2011 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the de facto complainant assailing the imposition of fine against the 1st respondent-accused by modifying the conviction from Section 326 to Section 324 IPC instead of imposing the sentence of imprisonment. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-State. Perused the records. 3. On a complaint given by the petitioner herein, alleging the offence under Section 307 r/w 34 IPC, criminal proceedings were initiated against the 1st respondent, which resulted in conviction of the 1st respondent. For the offence under Section 326 IPC the trial Court imposed sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.1000/- and for the offence under Section 324 IPC rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/-. The other accused were acquitted. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, 1st respondent-A1 preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.182 of 2006. The learned Sessions Judge by the judgment, dated 28.06.2007, modified the conviction for Section 326 IPC to one under Section 324 IPC and imposed additional fine of Rs.3000/-. As such, 1st respondent-A1 has in all paid total fine amount of Rs.4500/-. A perusal of the judgment in Crl.A.No.182 of 2006 would disclose that on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly modified the conviction from Section 326 to that of 324 IPC in exercise of the judicial discretion and in the facts and circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge imposed additional fine of Rs.3000/- instead of sentencing the 1st respondnt-A1 for imprisonment. The said modification of conviction and imposition of fine instead of sentence of imprisonment do not call for interference. There are no merits in the Revision Case. 4. In the result, Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 19th July, 2011. Tsy