JUDGMENT 1. - This is a revision petition against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Dholpur dated 22.11.2000 by which he upheld the conviction of the accused appellant and the sentence passed against him on 22.12.1999 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Badi. The accused petitioner was convicted for the offence Under section 325 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year's imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default, to undergo three months imprisonment. He was also convicted and sentenced for offence Under section 323 IPC to undergo four months imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/-, and in default, to undergo one month's imprisonment. For offence Under section 341 IPC, he was 10 sentenced to undergo one month's simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/-, and in default, to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. In appeal, he was unsuccessful. Hence this revision. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that on 17.3.1996, Ajmer Singh lodged a report at Police Station Basaidang that his son Hakko went to the jungle to graze goats. It was Keshav who gave beatings and when Ajmer Singh came to know, he went there and found his son lying in bed of river. The boy narrated the story to the father and then the matter was reported. During investigation medical examination of the boy was conducted and it was found that he had suffered grievous as well as simple injuries. After investigation, challan was submitted. Accused petitioner was tried and convicted as stated above. 3. The settled law is that evidence cannot be further appreciated in revisions. For this purpose, attention may be drawn to State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavendan Namboodiri, JT 1999 (1) SC 456 . 4. Learned counsel submitted that the sentence may be reduced as the occurrence had taken place some time in 1996 and that the accused is in custody since 22.11.2000 or the accused petitioner may be given benefit under the Probation Act. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed it. But, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case when the accused petitioner is a young man and by causing injury to the eye of the injured, his eye sight has lessen, I am of the view that benefit under the probation should not be given to the petitioner. But, of course, his sentence Under section 325 IPC should be reduced. 5. But, of course, his sentence Under section 325 IPC should be reduced. 5. Consequently, this petition is partly allowed. The conviction of the accused petitioner Under section 325 IPC is maintained but his sentence is reduced from one year to six months. Sentence of fine is maintained. Sentence and fine passed under other offences are also maintained. A certified copy of this order be sent to be learned appellate court as well as trial court.Revision partly allowed. *******