JUDGMENT 1. - This is a revision-petition by Mustafa convict again the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Merta, dated 10.12.1975, whereby his conviction and sentence under Section 324, Indian Penal Code was upheld. The petitioner was tired by the Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur, and was convicted and sentence under Section 324, Indian Penal Code to six month's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment to fine to further suffer imprisonment for one month. 2. The. prosecution story again against the petitioner was that on 14.4.1973 at about 6 p.m. he along with other co-accused, who have been acquired assaulted Kavum, while the letter was sitting on the raised platform of Abdul Gafoor, P.W.2. It was alleged that the petitioner inflicted on blow with a Pharsi, i.e.an axe on the right parital eminence of Kayum and caused simple injuries Kavum suffered two more injuries, i.e. bruises on the head and right shoulder, but these injuries were not ascribed to the petitioner. A report of this incident was lodged by Kayum with the police station, Mundava, on 15.4.1973 at 5 P.M. 3. The Police made the usual investigation into the case and, after collecting necessary evidence, filed a challan against the petitioner and six other co-accused in the Court of the Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur, who tired and convicted the petitioner, as stated above. 4. The revision petition was admitted on the ground of sentence only, as I was satisfied upon perusal of the judgments of both the courts below that it was the petitioner, who caused a simple injuries to Kayum with `Pharsi' on his right parietal eminence. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not succeed in challenging the conviction of Mustafa under SEction 324, Indian Penal Code on any reasonable ground. Dr. P.R. Joshi also testified to the fact that on medical examination of Kayum, he found one incised would =" x ⅙" x " on the right parietal eminence. 5. The only point argued before may by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that looking to the nature and size of the injury, the sentence awarded to the petitioner is very severe Shri K.Cr. Bhandari appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, contended that the sentence is not excessive and there are no mitigating circumstances to justify reduction thereof. 6. I have considered the rival contentions. Bhandari appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, contended that the sentence is not excessive and there are no mitigating circumstances to justify reduction thereof. 6. I have considered the rival contentions. It may be observed at the outser that the petitioner is not a previous convict for a similar offence. He caused one simple injury with a `Pharsi' on the right parietal eminence of Kayum. The size of the injury is not big. The case of the prosecution that the petitioner along with other co-accused formed an unlawful assembly with a common object could not be proved beyond doubt. 7. Having regard to all these circumstances, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met, if the sentences of six month's rigorous imprisonment is reduced to a term already undergone by the petitioner and the fine of Rs. 200/- is reduced to a fine of Rs. 100/-, and in default of payment of fine the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days. The petitioner has already undergone rigorous imprisonment for nine days. 8. I, therefore, partly accept the revision-petition and while maintaining his conviction under Section 324, Indian Penal Code reduce the sentence of six months, rigorous imprisonment to a term already undergone by him and further reduce the sentence of fine of Rs. 200/- to a fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days. The petitioner is in jail and be shall be released forth with, if not required in connection with some other case. He is directed to deposit the sum of fine if Rs. 100/-, in the trial court within two months from this day. *******