JUDGMENT 1. - Criminal revision No. 27/73, filed by the State, for enhancement of sentence and Appeal No. 640/72, filed by accused Okhnath challenging the conviction and sentence awarded to him by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalore (vide order dated September 20, 1972), arise out of the same judgment relating to the same occurrence. Both the appeal and revision are accordingly disposed of by a common judgment. 2. Accused Okhnath was tried by the learned Additional Sessions 'Judge, Jalore, for causing grievous hurt to his wife, Smt. Sunderi, on 26-6-71, at 12 in the noon. Learned Sessions Judge believing the statement of Mst. Sunderi, corroborated by medical evidence, convicted the accused under section 326 IPC and sentenced him to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to payment of which to suffer further three months simple imprisonment. He was also convicted under section 323 IPC and sentenced to three months simple imprisonment. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. We are not required to consider in detail the evidence and all the circumstances brought forth on the record by the prosecution to establish guilt against the accused as the learned counsel for the appellant has rightly conceded that there are no sufficient grounds made out for challenging the fact that occurrence did take place in the manner alleged by the prosecution. However, we have looked into the relevant portion of the records and are of satisfied that the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt by cogent, consistent and reliable evidence that accused Okknath inflicted sharp weapon injury on the person of Mst. Sunderi. That injury was found to be grievous. In the facts and circumstances of the case, sentence awarded by the trial court cannot be said to be excessive. Appeal filed by the appellant has no merit and it is dismissed. 4. As regards the revision filed by the State for enhancement of sentence, suffice it to say that the question of sentence is normally in the discretion of trial Judge and would not ordinarily be disturbed by the High Court in revision if it has been exercised judicially. Interference is called for when it is manifestly inadequate. 5. The learned Judge while awarding lesser sentence has taken into consideration the fact of Mst. Interference is called for when it is manifestly inadequate. 5. The learned Judge while awarding lesser sentence has taken into consideration the fact of Mst. Sunderi being a woman of bad character and the age of the accused being 16 years, none of these considerations can be irrelevant. The accused has turned a new leaf in life. After 9 years of his release from jail, it would be a bit harsh to enhance the sentence. The revision filed by the State is dismissed.Both the appeal and revision stand disposed of indicated above.Appeal dismissed. *******