1. This revision is directed on behalf of the applicant/accused under section 397/401 of the CrPC, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.4.2009 passed by the Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in Cr.A.No. 139/09 whereby dismissing his appeal, the judgment dated 26.6.09 passed by the JMFC, Chhatarpur in Cr.C.No. 1607/08 convicting and sentencing him for the offence under section 452 and 326 of the IPC with a direction to undergo RI for one year with fine of Rs.500/- separately in such sections, has been affirmed.

2. The short facts of the case necessary to adjudicate this revision are that on 23.10.98, the present applicant went to the house of victim Rajola where she was all alone. After opening the door of her house, he went to the upper storey of the same where after some discussion with the victim who was his first wife, he have the blow of axe on her by which she sustained some injury in her palm then another below was also given by which she sustained some injury on the left shoulder and he also caused biting injury on her nose. On lodging the report by the victim at Police station Khajuraho a crime was registered against the applicant at police station Khajuraho for the offence under sections 452,323 and 506-B of the IPC. The victim was sent to the hospital where her MLC report was prepared. On completion of the investigation, the applicant was charge sheeted for the offence under sections 452, 323, and 506-B of the IPC. On framing the charge of sections 452,323,324 and 506B of the IPC, the applicant abjured the guilt, on which the evidence was recorded and on appreciation of the same, he was convicted and sentenced as stated above. On filing the appeal, the same was dismissed, on which, the applicant has came to this Court with this revision.

3. Shri Chourasia, learned counsel for the applicant without challenging the findings of the Courts below holding the applicant responsible for the alleged incident, made his limited submission saying that in view of the nature of the injuries sustained by the applicant in the alleged incident which has been stated by Dr. Pankaj Rastogi (PW 6) in his deposition, the applicant could not be convicted under section 326 of the IPC and, in any case, this was not the case of more than section 324 of the IPC besides the section 452 of the IPC. Pursuant to it, he also said that looking to the pendency of this litigation since long and the disputed relationship between the parties, the jail sentence of the applicant imposed by the Courts below, considering his argument on modification of the aforesaid offence in the matter, the same be reduced upto the period for which he has already undergo. In this respect he said that during pendency of the trial, the applicant remained in judicial custody between 25.10.98 to 3.12.98 and 24.2.09 to 25.2.2009 near about 42 days and after passing the impugned judgment by the appellate Court on 27.4.2010 till passing the order of suspension of jail sentence on 14.5.2010, he remained in jail near about 19 days. Accordingly, he has suffered more than two months of the jail custody and prayed to reduce the jail sentence till this extent by allowing this revision.

4. On the other hand, responding the aforesaid argument Smt. Nirmala Nayak, GA. by justifying the impugned judgments submits that the approach of the Courts below holding conviction against the applicant under section 326 of the IPC, is based on proper appreciation of the evidence and it does not require any interference at this stage. In continuation she also said that in any case, in the available circumstances, the applicant does not deserve either for modification of the offence or for reduction of the jail sentence awarded by the Courts below and prayed for dismissal of this revision.

5. Having heard the counsel, keeping in view their arguments, I have carefully gone through the record along with the impugned judgments. The approach of the Courts below holding responsible to the applicant for