G. D. DUBEY, J. This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Rampur rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioners challenging the order of the Magistrate Court No. 6, Rampur convicting the petitioners-revisionists to various terms of imprisonment. The appellate court had however, modified the order of sentence. Appellant Ram Lal was fined to Rs. 200/- under Section 324, I. P. C. and Rs, 50/under Section 504, I. P. C. in default of payment of fine he was to under go two months R. I. and 10 days R. I. respectively Ramkali was sentenced to a line of Rs. 100/- under Section 323 and Rs. 50/- under Section 504, I P. C. and in default of payment of line R. I. for one month and 10 days respectively. Out of this realised amount from the accused-revisionists an amount of Rs. 300/- was ordered to be paid to complainant Bhoop Dei. 2. The facts of this case are very, brief. It has been alleged that both the parties are closely related and resided in the same house. Smt. Ram Kali is the wife of Ram Lal revisionist. It is alleged that the accused persons wanted to take forcible possession over the house allegedly belonging to both the parties. At about 8 a. m. on 27-8-1984 Smt. Bhoop Dei P. W. 1 had gone to the field. On her return she found Ram Kali cooking food on her (complainants) Chulha. On protest the two accused abused and assaulted with the tongs (Chimta) and knife. Ram Lal was possessing knife and revisionist Ram Kali was possessing Chimta. On alarm witnesses had arrived and intervened, of F. I. R. was lodged at the police station. Complainant was examined by a doctor who had noticed two incised wound, one abraison and one multiplec lenear abraison on the body. The prosecution had examined Bhoop Dei P. W. 1, Chheda Lalp. W. 3 and Dr. Narendra Pal Singh in support of its case, The accused had pleaded not guilty. They had examined Devendra Singh, In Jiyal Laland Devi Das. The two courts below had accepted the prosecution version and passed the impugned order. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the finding of the lower court are quite perverse and no finding could have been arrived at on the evidence on record. They had examined Devendra Singh, In Jiyal Laland Devi Das. The two courts below had accepted the prosecution version and passed the impugned order. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the finding of the lower court are quite perverse and no finding could have been arrived at on the evidence on record. It was firstly contended that the injuries were superficial and appears to be fabricated. The incised wound could not be caused by a knife. Consequently, it was urged that from the evidence of Bhoopdei it transpires that some letter for examination of injuries was in prepared by the police. This letter has not been produced. The general diary of entry following the registration of the case in the police station was also not to proved. This would have established that Suit. Bhoop Dei had injuries on her person. 4. I have heard learned A. G. A. also. 5. The two contentions of learned counsel for the revisionists relates to appreciation of evidence. The lower court has reduced the sentence to a fine. The offence is of a petty nature. Since both the parties belong to the same family, it appears to be a consequence of family dispute. 6. The revisional court should not interfere in such matters where the two courts of facts have found the offence established against the two revisionists. The two courts have not found the injuries on the person of Smt. Bhoop Dei fabricated. It has been urged that it was not possible that from a knife the two incised wounds could be caused. This is not correct. Act the time of quarrel, the victim would not have been static like a log of wood. In the course of movement in order to save from the blows, the victim would have been moving If in such a state the knife blows are attempted, then it may cause superficial injuries. It is not probable that in a non-cognizable case the police would have prepared a memo to doctor for examination of the victim. The case of the prosecution cannot be thrown out on a stray sentence occurring in the cross-examination of an illiterate lady witness that the police had prepared memo for examination of injuries. 7. The two courts below have discussed the evidence in quite detail. I do not find any error in their appreciation of evidence. The case of the prosecution cannot be thrown out on a stray sentence occurring in the cross-examination of an illiterate lady witness that the police had prepared memo for examination of injuries. 7. The two courts below have discussed the evidence in quite detail. I do not find any error in their appreciation of evidence. The lower court has taken a very lenient view in the matter of sentence. 8. It has been argued in the end that the conviction of revisionists Ram Lal should not entail losing of his service. It would be for the employer to consider as to whether in such family disputes which occur generally in families, he would be inclined to remove revisionist No. 2 from his services. No other observation need be made in this case. 9. No other point has been pressed. 10. The revision fails and is dismissed. Revision dismissed.