JUDGMENT (ORAL) Vishnu Sahai. J. - Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Through this revision application, the petitioners have impugned the judgment and order dated 28-9-1990 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. Solapur in Criminal Appeal No. 101 of 1989, whereby the judgment and order dated 3-11-1989 passed by the J.M.F.C. Akkalkot in Regular Criminal case no. 68 of 1987, convicting them for offences punishable under Sections 452 r /w 34 IPC and 326 r /w 34 IPC and sentencing each one of them to a separate sentence of2 months S.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 2001- in default to undergo 15 days S.I. on each of the two counts has been confirmed. 3. The concurrent finding of the courts below is that on 19-4-1987 at about 7 a.m. the petitioners entered inside the house of Smt. Rajmani PW 1 situated in village Badole BK. dragged her out while was asleep from the house brought her outside the entrance door of her house; caught hold of her; and thereafter the absconding accused Kashinath first caused injury to her by biting her nose and then inflicting knife blows on her eyes. 4. The said finding apart from the evidence of the victim and some other occular account is corroborated by the medical evidence which shows marks of teeth bite over the middle and lower part of nose an incised wound and a penetrating wound over the left eye-ball. 5. It is well-settled that in its revisional jurisdiction this court does not sit as a third court of fact. It only interferes with the concurrent findings' of fact if they are perverse which is not the case here. 6. In the said situation in my judgment the impugned order on merits warrants no interference. However, in my view the ends of justice would be sufficiently satisfied if the jail sentence of the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone by them and the sentence of fine imposed on them is confirmed. I am taking this view for the reasons stated hereinafter: (a) that the incident took place more then 11 years go; (b) the only role as assigned to the petitioners who are ladies is of catching hold of the victim and. (c) there is nothing to indicate that the petitioners are previous convicts. 7. In the result, this revision is partly allowed. Although. (c) there is nothing to indicate that the petitioners are previous convicts. 7. In the result, this revision is partly allowed. Although. I maintain the conviction of the petitioners for offences under section 452 r/w 34 IPC and 326 r/w 34 IPC as also the sentence of fine and that in its default on the said counts, but I reduce their jail sentence to the period already undergone by them. In case the petitioners have not paid the fine they may do so within a period of four months from today in the trial Court and in the event of their failure to do so, they would be taken into custody to serve the sentence in default of payment of fine. Rule stands disposed off in the said manner. The trial Court shall also accept the fine on production of a certified copy of this Judgment which in case an application is made shall be issued within four weeks from today. Revision partly allowed.