The main legal point established in the judgment is that in revisional jurisdiction, findings of fact can only be interfered with if they are apparently perverse or based on no evidence. The court also emphasized the importance of corroborative evidence in reaching its decision.

1) The State, being aggrieved by the order of inadequate sentence recorded by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Degloor, for the offence under Section 326 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, has come in the appeal.

2) The accused/Revision Petitioners by filing a Revision have challenged the judgment and order dated 27.9.2006 in Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 1994 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli, who confirmed the judgment and order of J.M.F.C. in Regular Trial No.177/1992. By the judgment of the J.M.F.C., the accused/original accused no.2 - Mallikarjun; accused no.5 - Laxman and accused no.10 - Shivraj, were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with 34 of IPC and were directed to suffer R.I. for one year each and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default, to further undergo R.I. for one year. By the said judgment, the learned J.M.F.C. has acquitted the other accused. It is the matter of record that said acquittal of other accused was also subjected to Criminal Appeal No. 396/1994, as raised by the State and by judgment dated 27.10.2005, this Court rejected the Criminal Appeal No. 396/1994.

3) On hearing both the sides, though learned Sr.Counsel for the accused elaborately read the evidence of eye-witnesses and the injured, at one stage, he was reminded that in a revision, the scope for appreciation is very limited and there are concurrent findings of two courts below against the accused, he should restrict his submissions to the law point only. The position of law is clear. The court while sitting in revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. should not reappreciate the evidence and the findings of fact recorded by the two courts below. However, these finding can only be interfered, if such findings are apparently perverse or based on no evidence or suffer from any other legal injury and error of law. With this aspect keeping in mind, the submissions of both the sides are considered.

4) The learned A.P.P., since wanted enhancement of the sentence recorded by the J.M.F.C., took me to the entire evidence and claimed that, for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC, there being a grievous hurt as defined under the statute, which grievous hurt is medically established by evidence of the medical officer (P.W.3), the learned J.M.F.C. should have recorded the sentence more than one year, considering the gravity of the matter.

5) The learned Sr.Counsel for the accused criticized the F.I.R. of the complainant (P.W.1) claiming that it is silent about the names of the accused and in the evidence he says that Sangram came to the house, while in the F.I.R. he states that while he was at home, employees working in field came. The criticism to the evidence of P.W.1 basically is not to be considered as P.W.1 is not an eye-witness to the incident. Whatever report he has given to the police is based on the communication received from his employees, who informed that his brother Hanmant was brutally assaulted and consequently, he rushed to police to put the investigation in motion. In this scenario of the matter, Exhibit-65 or evidence of P.W.1 will have to be read. It cannot be said there are omissions and or contradictions in his evidence.

6) On the incident, there are following witnesses : P.W.4 - Hanmantrao Vithalrao Patil; P.W.5 - Sangram Malhari Waghmare; P.W.8 - Sangram Hullaji Waghmare.

7) On assessing evidence of these witnesses, coupled with complainant’s evidence, I find that barring few contradictions about the distance to be 50 ft. or less or about who rushed first, there is no variance in their evidence to claim that they are brought up witnesses or that they are interested to falsely implicate the accused. It is pertinent to note that the learned Judge, considering the evidence of the witnesses, showing specific role to accused no.2 - Mallikarjun with an axe; accused no. 5 - Laxman with Katti; and accused no.10 - Shivraj with an axe, and brutally assaulting