JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been preferred by three petitioners whose appeal against their conviction and sentence for offences under Sections 452, 354 and 323 IPC has been rejected on merits by learned Additional Sessions judge, Raisinghnagar vide judgment dated 23.10.1999. What the learned Sessions Judge did was that he reduced the sentence for offences under Sections 452 and 354 IPC. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public, Prosecutor and have perused the record. 3. Briefly stated, on 16.10.1993 at 7.30 P.M. Smt. Kailash Kaur lodged first information report with the allegation that her husband prosecuted the petitioners under Sections 107, 116 Cr.PC. and they became inimical. On the day of incident her husband had gone to procure medicines for her daughter. At about 5.30 PM, the petitioners entered her house and gave her beatings. Her hairs were pulled up. She was insulted. Gurnam Singh have a `panda' below on her lip. When she raised alarm her son Soma Singh and Piyaro Bai came and rescued her. On return of her husband she narrated the incident to him and then report was lodged. 4. After investigation challan was submitted before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar who framed charges under Sections 452, 354 and 323 IPC. Prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses and then accused petitioners were examined under Section 313 Cr.PC. They did not produce any defence witness. After hearing the parties learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar convicted the accused petitioners for offences under Sections 452, 364, 323 read with Section 34 IPC. He passed sentence of one year for offence under Section 452, six months for offence under Section 354 and three months for offence under Section 323 IPC. On appeal conviction was maintained but the sentence was reduced to three months each for offences under Sections 452 and 354 IPC while sentence of three months for offence under Section 323 IPC was altered to only a fine of Rs. 100/-. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the most glaring feature of this case is that Smt. Kailash Kaur has no sanctity for other and yet she has been believed. It has also been submitted that when both the courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence the same can be appreciated by this Court. 100/-. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the most glaring feature of this case is that Smt. Kailash Kaur has no sanctity for other and yet she has been believed. It has also been submitted that when both the courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence the same can be appreciated by this Court. According to learned counsel after appreciating the evidence the conviction cannot be sustained. 6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that evidence once appreciated by trial court and re-appreciated by appellate court cannot be further appreciated by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. He cited State of Kerala v. Puttumana Math Jathavedan Namboodiri etc., JT 1999(1) SC page 456, in which it was held that the revisional powers of the High Court cannot be equated with the power of an appellate court nor can it be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction. It has been further held in the said citation that ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own finding on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as Sessions Judge in appeal unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. 7. After having gone through the evidence on record. I do not agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is some glaring feature as stated by the counsel in this case. Smt. Kailash Kaur is definitely a reliable witness so far as the offences which are proved against the petitioners are concerned. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that she might have exaggerated the story but that does not mean that she is wholly unreliable. The FIR and the statement of Smt. Kailash Kaur under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of course do not disclose that any rape was committed with her but the FIR does say that her modesty was outraged. FIR can admittedly be used for the purpose of corroboration. In view of above I do not find any infirmity in the finding of guilt recorded by both the courts below. 8. In the end learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that lenient view may be taken so far as sentence is concerned. FIR can admittedly be used for the purpose of corroboration. In view of above I do not find any infirmity in the finding of guilt recorded by both the courts below. 8. In the end learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that lenient view may be taken so far as sentence is concerned. I do not find any reason to interfere even in the sentence which has been passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge. He has already taken a lenient view and has dealt with the case with clemency. 9. Consequently, there is no force in this revision petition and it is hereby dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******