JUDGMENT 1. - This is a revision petition by Jamil convict against the judgement 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 tried by the Judicial Magistrate, Nagour and was convicted under section 324, Indian Penal code and sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer imprisonment for fifteen days. 2. The prosecution case against the petitioner was that on 14.4.1975 at about 6 p.m. he along with other accused, who have been acquitted, assaulted Bashir with a Pharsi blow on the left parietal region of the head resulting in an incised wound 1/2" x ⅙" bone deep. A report of this incident was made to the police at police station, Mundawa by Bashir injured. The police made the usual investigation into the case and, after collecting necessary evidence, filed a challan against the petitioner and four other co-accused in the court of the Munsiff-Magistrate, Nagaur, under section 147, 148, 323 and 324, Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate tried the accused and convicted and sentenced him as stated above. 3. The revision-petition was admitted on the ground of sentence only as I was satisfied upon perusal of judgement of both the courts below that Jamil was rightly held guilty of voluntarily causing simple injury to Bashir with a sharp-edged weapon 'Pharsi'. Both the courts below relied upon the evidence of Bashir and his wife Mst. Mahmooda and PW 6 Kamaluddin in convicting the petitioner for an offence under section 324, Indian Penal Code and I see absolutely no reason to take a different view. 4. The only point argued before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the sentence awarded to the petitioner is severe in the circumstances of the case and that looking to the superficial injury caused to the left parietal region of the head of Bashir, a nominal sentence was called for, but both the courts below committed an error in passing a severe sentence. Shri K.C. Bhandari appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, urged that the injury was on a vital part and was caused by the petitioner with a Pharsi and that there were no mitigating circumstances to justify a lenient sentence. 5. Shri K.C. Bhandari appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, urged that the injury was on a vital part and was caused by the petitioner with a Pharsi and that there were no mitigating circumstances to justify a lenient sentence. 5. I have considered the rival contentions. It may be observed at the out set that the petitioner is not a previous convict for a similar offence. The injury inflicted by him on a parietal region of head of Bashir was not dangerous or severe in any manner. The petitioner caused no other injury to Bashir. The prosecution could not prove that the petitioner along with other co-accused formed an unlawful assembly with a common object to best Bashir and inflicted the injury on the head of Bashir in furtherance of the said common object, although it had set up such a case in the trial court. 6. Having regard to nature and size of the injury and other circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if sentence of three months, rigorous imprisonment is reduced to a term already undergone by the petitioner and a fine of Rs. 200/-, is reduced to a fine of Rs. 100/-, and in default of payment of fine the petitioner to suffer simple imprisonment for ten days. The petitioner has already undergone rigorous imprisonment for nine days. 7. I, therefore, partly accept the revision petition and while maintaining his conviction under section 324, Indian Penal Code reduce the sentence of three 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 ten days. The petitioner is in jail. He shall be released forthwith, if not required in connection with some other case. He is directed to deposit the sum of Rs. 100/- in the trial court within two months from this day. *******