THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CRL. REVISION CASE No. 1813 of 2004. JUDGEMENT: This revision is directed against the Judgement dt. 14.10.2004 in Crl.A.No. 90 of 2004 passed by the learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Siddipet, Medak District whereby and whereunder the Judgement dt. 26.7.2004 in C.C.No. 257 of 2001 passed by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gajwel was confirmed. The petitioners herein will be referred as the accused for the sake of convenience. It is not in dispute that the accused and the material witnesses belong to same village. Pw.2 and A.1 to A.3 are brothers. It is alleged that on 6.12.2001 a petty quarrel took place between the parties. On 7.12.2001 at about 7 a.m. while Pw.1 and his brother Pw.4 were standing in the court-yard of the house of Pw.2, A.1 to A.4 came there and A.4 beat Pw.2 with a stick on his mouth, as a result of which Pw.2 lost his two teeth and when Pws 1, 3 and 4 intervened, they were also beaten and they also sustained injuries. Then Pw.1 went to the police station and presented the complaint Ex:P.1. Basing on the same, Pw.10 registered a case and referred the injured to the hospital for medical examination, visited scene of offence and seized the stick said to have been used in the commission of the offence. Pw.9 is the doctor who examined the injured and issued wound certificates. The evidence of Pw.9 shows that the injury on the mouth of Pw.1 was fresh and he issued Ex:P.6 wound certificate which also reveals that Pw.2 lost incise tooth on right side and he also noticed an abrasion over lower lip ½” x ½”. He also examined Pw.3 and issued Ex:P.7 wound certificate. He found multiple abrasions over the body of Pw.3 and the injuries are simple in nature. The medical evidence on record shows that Pws 2 and 3 sustained injuries and they are the injured witnesses. It is argued that Pws 5 and 6 though cited as eye- witnesses but their evidence show that they reached the scene of offence after the incident. Though the evidence of Pws 5 and 6 show that they reached the scene of offence after the incident, their evidence show that they found Pw.2 with a bleeding injury on his mouth. The evidence of prosecution witnesses clinchingly establishes that A.1 to A.4 attacked them and A.4 was holding a stick and that it is A.4 who caused bleeding injury to Pw.2 resulting in loss of one tooth. The very act of the accused coming together holding sticks and attacking the prosecution witnesses and causing injuries to Pws 2 and 3 show that they had common intention to commit the offence. Therefore the finding of the trial court and the appellate court appears to be based proper appreciation of evidence. More over in revision, the High Court is not expected to re-appreciate the evidence. No illegality has been pointed out in the findings of the courts below. The findings of the courts below appear to be not perverse and therefore the revisional court cannot interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the courts below. In the circumstances, the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 325 r/w 34 IPC is hereby confirmed. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioners/accused submitted that the petitioners are agriculturists and there is no criminal background and that they are not involved in any criminal case prior to this offence and on the spur of the moment, the accused had committed the offence and therefore a lenient view may be taken. He further submitted that the offence took place in the year 2001 and nearly a decade time lapsed from the date of offence and no useful purpose will be served even if the petitioners/accused are now sent to jail. He further submitted that A.1 was aged 50 years as on the date of offence and now he is aged about 60 years and A.4 was a boy of 20 years as on the date of offence and now he is married and having wife and children and therefore it is not desirable to send them to jail. Taking into consideration the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners/accused and the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the accused were already in jail for more than one week after the appeal was dismissed, I consider it just and reasonable to modify the sentence as under: The accused are sentenced to suffer imprisonment for the period already undergone by them and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 325 r/w 34 IPC. In default of payment of fine, the accused are sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. Since it is submitted that the accused have already paid a sum of Rs. 2,000/- each as fine, they are directed to pay the remaining fine amount of Rs. 3,000/- each. Out of fine amount, a sum of Rs. 7,000/- shall be awarded to Pw.2 and a sum of Rs. 3,000/- to Pw.3, as compensation u/s 357 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Subject to the above modification in the sentence, the criminal revision case is dismissed. ______________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR,J 19.07.2010. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CRL. REVISION CASE No. 1813 of 2004. JUDGEMENT: Dt. 19.07.2010