Judgment : M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J. ( 1 ) CR1. RC. No. 872 of. 1997 by the petitioner/accused is directed against the judgment in C. A No. 120/96 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge. Thanjavur confirming the conviction for the offence under Section 3251. P. C. ilnd sentence to undergo R. I. for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- imposed upon the petitioner in C. C. No. 120/96 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. 1. Pattukottai. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution is that on 14-11-1993 at about 10. 30 AM. , the petitioner, out of previous enmity, came near the house of P. W. 1 Amalu, a house. wife, and attacked her with casuarina stick on her right leg and caused grievous injuries. ( 3 ) THE trial court, after having considered the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 9 and Ex. P-I to Ex.-P-6 and M. O. 1 series on the side of the prosecution and the evidence of D. W. 1 on the side of the defence, concluded that the petitioner was guilty of the offence under Section 325 I. P. C. Since the said conviction was confirmed by the lower appellate court as well. the present revision has been preferred by the accused/petitioner before this Court. ( 4 ) CR1. R. C. No. 723 of 1998 is preferred by P. W. 1 Amalu, the victim in this case. challenging the sentence to undergo R. I. for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-imposed upon the accused on the ground of inadequacy. ( 5 ) MR. Srinivasan, the counsel appearing for the accused, would contend, while attacking the judgments of courts below, that the evidence adduced by the prosecution, which is full of contradictions, has not been properly analysed by the courts below and that the evidence of D. W. 1 has been completely overlooked and thereby wrong conclusion has been arrived at. ( 6 ) MR. Jagadeesan, the counsel appearing for the petitioner first informant in Cr1. RC. No. 723/98. ( 6 ) MR. Jagadeesan, the counsel appearing for the petitioner first informant in Cr1. RC. No. 723/98. would contend, in support of his claim that the sentence has to be enhanced, when the serious offence under Section 325 I. P. C. is required to be considered by imposing severe sentence, especially when the sentence prescribed under Section 325 I. P. C. is 7 years along with the fine, the courts below ought not to have shown undue leniency to tile petitioner by imposing mere fine of Rs. 1001-and sentence of RI. for 6 months though the prosecution had established that the petitioner took a casuarina stick, attacked the victim and caused very serious grievous injuries on her. ( 7 ) I have gone through the records and also given my anxious thought to the respective submissions made on either side. ( 8 ) BOTH the courts below, in my view, have considered the factual aspects and believed the prosecution case to find the accused guilty under Section 325 I. P. C. It is clear that there are no vitol contradictions which would affect the core of the prosecution. As a matter of fact, the evidence of P. W. 1 victim has been corroborated by the other witnesses P. Ws. 3 and 4. Moreover, there is a medical testimony which fully corroborates the ocular testimony. Nothing has been overlooked by both the courts below. ( 9 ) THEREFORE, I do not find any infirmity, in the appreciation made by both the courts below to find the accused guilty under Section 325 I. P. C. As such, the revision Cr1. RC. 872/97 as against the conviction is liable to be dismissed, as devoid of merits. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. ( 10 ) BEFORE parting with the case, I must point out that while the petitioner was convicted by the trial court, for the offence under Section 325 I. P. C. and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- it is seen from records that the same amount was paid and the trial court suspended the sentence of 6 months. As against the conviction, the petitioner filed an appeal before the lower appellate court, which in turn, on the application filed by the petitioner, suspended the sentence and posted the matter for final disposal. 100/- it is seen from records that the same amount was paid and the trial court suspended the sentence of 6 months. As against the conviction, the petitioner filed an appeal before the lower appellate court, which in turn, on the application filed by the petitioner, suspended the sentence and posted the matter for final disposal. After hearing the counsel for the respective parties, the lower appellate court posted the matter for judgment and on that day of judgment unfortunately, the petitioner did not choose to appear before the court. So, there was no other alternative for the lower appellate court to pronounce judgment and to issue non-bailable warrant against the petitioner. This judgment was pronounced on 10-11-1997. On 26-11-1997, the petitioner filed the revision before this court, even without making any effort to file an application for recalling the warrant or by surrendering before the court to get into judicial custody. ( 11 ) IT is pained to see when the revision was filed before this court, in the bail application filed along with the main application, it is mentioned that the petitioner was confined in Trichy jail This is not factually correct. However, on the basis of the averments in the petition, this Court, while admitting the revision on 1-12-1997. granted bail to the petitioner on 3-12-1997 by suspending the sentence thinking that the petitioner was in the judicial custody by undergoing the imprisonment in the Trichy jail Even thereafter the petitioner through his counsel did not choose to inform the court that he was not actually in jail Therefore, the order of bail and suspending the sentence passed by the Court was based on the incorrect information given by the counsel for the petitioner and this Court tokes a very serious view of the matter. ( 12 ) HOWEVER, Mr. Srinivasan, the counsel for the petitioner, would submit that he was not correctly instructed by the counsel appearing in the lower court. Anyhow, I do not propose to go into the question as to whether the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner is correct or not. ( 13 ) LET me now consider the sentence imposed upon by the lower court is adequate or not, since this court is called upon in Cr1. R. C. No. 728 of 1998 filed by the first informant questioning the sentence. ( 13 ) LET me now consider the sentence imposed upon by the lower court is adequate or not, since this court is called upon in Cr1. R. C. No. 728 of 1998 filed by the first informant questioning the sentence. ( 14 ) THIS Court in Selvam/lakshmanan/kannaiyan v. State elaborately considered the scope of revision in regard to the powers to enhance the sentence on the ground of inadequacy on the strength of the following decisions: (1) Kodavandi Moideenv. State of Kerala (2) Nadir Khan v. State (Delhi Administration) (3) Bachan Singapore And Others v. State of Punjab and (4) Sham sunder v. Puran And Another. and held that this Court has power, either suo motu or when being brought to notice by the first informant that the order of the lower court is incorrect with reference to the sentence this court has power, to interfere with the same and enhance the sentence. ( 15 ) IN the light of the above principles, the facts and circumstances of this case are quite relevant to consider whether the sentence of R. I. for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- is sufficient or not. ( 16 ) THIS is a case where P. W. 1 a house wife, victim, went and objected the act of the petitioner, who attempted to construct a hut in the land belonging to P. W. 1. Admittedly, the husband of P. W. 1 was not available. The occurrence had token place at 10. 30 A. M. on 14-11-1993. When. P. W. 1 came and objected to the act of the petitioner, he took an Aruval and attempted to attack on the victim. Fortunately, a witness, who was present at the place of occurrence restrained him by going near him and snatching the Aruval from him. Even thereafter , the accused took out a casuarina stick could available in the scene of occurrence and gave a heavy blow on the hip of the victim. On receipt of injury on the hip, P. W. 1 fell down on the ground. Without satisfying that, the petitioner gave another blow on her leg. Thereafter , she was token to the hospital by P. W. 2, the husband of P. W. 1. Then P. W. 2 gave a complaint to the police and the case was registered. On receipt of injury on the hip, P. W. 1 fell down on the ground. Without satisfying that, the petitioner gave another blow on her leg. Thereafter , she was token to the hospital by P. W. 2, the husband of P. W. 1. Then P. W. 2 gave a complaint to the police and the case was registered. ( 17 ) SO, in these circumstances, I feel that the sentence of R. I. for 6 months and the fine of Rs. 100/- is not at all adequate especially when this offence under Section 325 I. P. C. , namely, the act of causing grievous injuries is punishable with imprisonment which may extend upto 7 years and with fine. Both the courts below, without adducing any reason, have imposed the sentence, which in my view, is quite inadequate. ( 18 ) IT is also represented by the counsel for the petitioner that he was a school teacher. The petitioner, being a teacher, instead of teaching the, students in the school, thought it fit to, toke a casuarina stick and attacked P. W. 1, the unfortunate and helpless victim, when her husband P. W. 2 was not avail, able in the house, Therefore, I feel that the ends of justice would be met by enhancing the sentence of R. I. for six months and fine of 100/- to R. I. for, 2 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to undergo R. I. for one year and accordingly, the sentence is enhanced. ( 19 ) NOW, the counsel for the petitioner requests for some sufficient time to deposit the fine amount into the trial court. Accordingly, he is directed to deposit the fine amount of Rs. 5,000/- on or before 15-10-1998 into the trial court. On deposit, the trial court is directed to hand over the fine amount to P. W. 1 as compensation after due intimation. Petitioner is directed to surrender immediately to undergo the remaining sentence. Or else the trial court is directed to toke steps to ensure his arrest. ( 20 ) WITH the above observation, the Revision Cr1. RC. No. 723/98 is allowed. Revision of accused dismissed. Revision No. 723 allowed.