1. The present revision petition under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. is preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08-09-2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chachoda District Guna in Criminal Appeal No.06/2006 confirming the judgment of conviction passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chachoda District Guna in Criminal Case No.131/2001 whereby petitioner has been convicted as under:

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that on 25-03-1999 at about 3 PM Munna and Babloo entered their cattle in the agriculture field of complainant and when he tried to drive away their cattle, both of them started showering filthy language and called their companions. Thereafter, pointing him, Prahlad Singh thrown sword which hit over his calf of left leg, Munna inflicted Farsi blow over his ribs, Gajendra Singh inflicted Farsi blow over his back. On complaint, FIR Ex-P/6 was registered against petitioner and three other persons at Crime No.112/1999 under Sections 325, 323, 504 of IPC. MLC of complainant was conducted in which he shown to have sustained two injuries and according to MLC both the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. Injury No.2 was simple in nature and for injury No.1 x-ray was advised and on x-ray Ex-P/4 fracture in 11th ribs was found. Matter was investigated and challan was filed in the matter under Sections 325, 323, 504 of IPC.

3. Before the trial Court -Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chachoda, district Guna petitioner abjured his guilt and prayed for trial. Prosecution examined 8 witnesses in support of its case and in defence, accused/petitioner himself has been examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. After recording of evidence ocular as well as documentary and hearing the submission of counsel for the parties, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner as referred above.

4. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court has been challenged by the petitioner by preferring criminal appeal. The appellate Court dismissed the said appeal and maintained the conviction of petitioner as recorded by the trial Court, therefore, the petitioner are before this Court.

5. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Courts below erred in convicting the petitioner for the offence referred above. There is material contradictions and omissions between the statements of prosecution witnesses and such aspect has not been considered by the trial Court. No independent witness supported the prosecution case and other prosecution witnesses were relative of the complainant, therefore, the testimony of these interested witnesses cannot be taken to be true without corroborative evidence. Testimony of complainant and other witnesses is not corroborated by medical evidence. No specific role is attributed to the petitioner in FIR and statements of witnesses. Thus, the trial Court erred in convicting the petitioner.

6. Alternatively, it is submitted that looking to the nature of offence, conviction and jail sentence, in view of the provisions of Section 357 of Cr.P.C. petitioner is ready to pay compensation/fine at higher side. Thus, it is submitted that the jail sentence of petitioner be reduced to the sentence already undergone by him and fine amount may be enhanced as this Court deems fit.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer, supported the judgments passed by the Courts below and prayed for dismissal of petition. However, he fairly accepted that if petitioner is ready to pay enhanced fine then only his case for undergone may be considered.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. It is a case where petitioner is facing the allegation of causing Lathi blow to the complainant. The aforesaid allegation of causing Lathi blow to the complainant -Bhanwar Singh (PW-1) is corroborated by medical evidence as according to MLC, complainant sustained injuries by hard and blunt object. In the case in hand, complainant sustained two injuries caused by petitioner and his companions.

10. Dr. A.G. Binchulkar (PW-4) who conducted MLC of the complainant vide Ex-P/2 opined that complainant sustained two simple injuries caused by hard and blunt object. On x-ray, out of those injuries, one was found to be fracture in 11th rib.

11. So far as evidence of complainant Bhanwar Singh (PW-1), his sons Brijraj Singh (PW-2) and Niranjan Singh (PW-3) is concerned although there appears some contradictions and omissions but if the testimony of all these witnesses are seen in toto, then complainant categorically levelled the allegations against the petitioner and his version has been duly supported by these witnesses. Other independent witnesses and the witnesses who were shown to be eye-witnesses did not support the story of prosecution.

12. In view of the above, looking to the testimony of complainant supported by his sons Brijraj Singh (PW-2) and Niranjan Singh (PW-3) and the injuries corroborated by medical evidence and further the testimony of doctors, this Court is of the considered view that both the Courts below did not commit any error in convicting the petitioner. Prosecution succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Courts below duly vetted the rival submissions and thereafter passed the impugned judgment and conviction against the petitioner. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K. Prakashan Vs. P.K.Surenderan (2008) 1 SCC 258 [LQ/SC/2007/1237] and T. Subramanian Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2006) 1 SCC 401 [LQ/SC/2006/17] held that if two views are possible and one view is taken by the trial Court after due appreciation of evidence then unless sheer perversity or illegality crept in to the judgment of trial Court, the scope of interference is limited.

13. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that after passing of judgment of conviction and sentence by the appellate Court, petitioner remained in jail and suffered 21 days' incarceration and further he has already suffered 22 years' long ordeal of trial and minimum sentence is not prescribed for offence under Section 325 of IPC, therefore, case of petitioner be considered for the sentence which is already undergone by him, for which he is ready to pay compensation at higher side. That will suitably compensate the complainant.

14. In view of the above, considering the facts and circumstances of the case benefit of reduction of sentence to the already undergone sentence is extended to the petitioner/revisionist to the extent that conviction recorded by the Courts below is maintained but sentence deserves to be modified to the extent that the sentence which petitioner/revisionist has undergone, would be sufficient for serving jail sentence but in view of Section 357 of Cr.P.C., fine of Rs.100/- which has been imposed by the trial Court deserves to be enhanced. Petitioner is directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- within two months from today while giving undertaking before the trial Court that if he failed to pay Rs.5,000/- (in addition to the fine amount imposed by the Courts below), then trial Court would proceed against him to serve remaining part of jail sentence. Thus, if petitioner/revisionist do not deposit the amount as directed by this Court within the stipulated time then he shall have to serve the remaining jail sentence, for which the Courts below sentenced him. It is made clear that this benefit of undergone has been given to the petitioner in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case where petitioner suffered almost one month's incarceration and suffered ordeal of trial for 22 years.

15. Resultantly, the revision petition preferred by the petitioner stands disposed of while maintaining the conviction recorded by the Courts below and the sentence is reduced to the sentence already undergone by him with further direction to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- (in addition to the fine imposed by the Courts below) to the complainant. The compensation amount shall be paid to the complainant after due verification. Petitioner is on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged.

16. Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court for information and necessary compliance.

17. Revision petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions.