The court can substitute actual imprisonment with a fine for first-time offenders when evidence does not support all charges.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA)

Heard Sri Sangoli Naganna and Smt.Shridevi B.Alba, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Smt.Arati Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent.

2. Revision petitioners are the accused persons who have suffered an order of conviction in C.C No.20/2018 on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayapura, and sentenced as under:

“Acting u/Sec 248(2) of Cr.P.C. the A-1 and A-2 are convicted and sentenced as under:

For the offence punishable u/Sec.323 of IPC, they are sentenced to undergo S.I. for 6 months and with a fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine amount, they shall undergo further simple imprisonment for one month.

For the offence punishable u/Sec.324 of IPC, they are sentenced to undergo S.I.for 2 years and with a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of fine amount, they shall undergo further simple imprisonment for two month. For the offence punishable u/Sec.341 of IPC, they are sentenced to undergo S.I.for 6 months and with a fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine amount, they shall undergo further simple imprisonment for one month.

For the offence punishable u/Sec.504 of IPC, they are sentenced to undergo S.I.for 6 months and with a fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine amount, they shall undergo further simple imprisonment for one month.

For the offence punishable u/Sec.506 of IPC, they are sentenced to undergo S.I.for 6 months and with a fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine amount, they shall undergo further simple imprisonment for one month.

All sentences above shall run concurrently.”

3. Validity of the order of conviction and sentence was questioned in Criminal Appeal No.32/2019 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Vijayapura.

4. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and by the judgment dated 19.08.2020 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Judge.

5. Being further aggrieved by same, accused persons are before this Court.

6. At the outset, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that given the scope of revisional jurisdiction, there is not much to submit in respect of conviction is concerned. But contended that insofar as the sentence is concerned, since the accused persons are the first time offenders, this Court may show leniency by setting aside the imprisonment for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and other offences, by enhancing the fine amount reasonably.

7. Per contra, Smt. Arati Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the said submission made on behalf of the revision petitioners and contended that voluntarily the revision petitioners have assaulted P.W.1. The wound certificate marked at Ex.P3 depicts that the injuries are simple in nature. However injury No.2 was shown to be grievous in nature.

8. She further contended that the witnesses have deposed before the Court including the injured witness who specifically deposed before the Court with graphic details as to what transpired on the day of the incident and therefore their evidence cannot be brushed aside lightly and sought for dismissal of the revision petition.

9. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

10. On such perusal of the material on record, no doubt, in Ex.P-3, injury No.2 is shown as a grievous injury, whi