Judgment S.N.Pathak, J. 1. The aforesaid three revisions have been taken up for analogous hearing because they have been preferred against the same judgment passed by the trial Court which has been confirmed by the appellate Court. Trial Court, the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class. Sasaram, in GRNo. 32/88 trial No. 50/90, convicted Shyam Lal Ram, Tejbali Ram, Shivanand Ram @ Sheo Nandan Ram and Deopujan Ram (revisionists in Cr. Rev. No. 397/99) under Sec. 323, IPC and sentenced them to undergo SI for sixmonths. Trial Court also convicted Ishwar Ram (revisionist in Cr. Revision No. 400/99) for the offence under Sec. 323. IPC and sentenced him to undergo SI for sixmonths. The trial Court also convicted Keshwar Ram (revisionist in Cr Rev. No. 401/99) for the offence under Secs. 323 and 324, IPC and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for sixmonths and one year R.I. respectively. All the above named revisionists were also convicted under Sec. 147, IPC and sentenced to undergo S.I. for six months. The appellate Court in Cr. Appeal No. 156/06, 137/02 and 138/05 of 1990/92 confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. 2. It has been submitted on behalf of all the revisionists that only interested witnesses or the family members supported the prosecution case and two other witnesses were hearsay witnesses. Moreover, it was the occurrence on sudden provocation. It has been submitted on behalf of revisionists of Cr. Rev. No. 397/99 that none of the witnesses spoke specifically that Shyam Lal Ram and Shivnand Ram assaulted the victim of the prosecution party. 3. However, on perusal of the record, it is apparent that all the revisionists were very much named in the FIR and the witnesses named all of them as having assaulted the victim. Of course, the witnesses failed to specify as to which of the accused assaulted whom so far as assault of lathi is concerned. But so far assault of bhala is concerned it was against Keshwar Ram. Findings of fact arrived at by the two courts below are almost conclusive. So, I do not think then is any scope for interference by this court in the findings of fact recorded by the two lower Courts. There is no misapplication of procedural law in conducting the trial. I am, therefore, of the 9pinion that there is no good case for exercising its power of revision by this Court. 4. So, I do not think then is any scope for interference by this court in the findings of fact recorded by the two lower Courts. There is no misapplication of procedural law in conducting the trial. I am, therefore, of the 9pinion that there is no good case for exercising its power of revision by this Court. 4. It was lastly submitted by the revisionist that the revisionists had the trauma of facing litigation for the last 14 years and hence they may be spared of punishment, and whatever period they had suffered, may be treated as period of sentence. But so far the case is concerned, it appears that the informant was earlier victim of some kind of a row over untying the rope attracted to the bucket for drawing water from the well. This occurrence occurred ten days earlier. So, on the date of the occurrence, the accused persons came to the house of the informant and assaulted his family members. So, it is further apparent that there was a preplanned occurrence of assault. That cannot normally be condoned. It was not an occurrence on sudden provocation. So culpable act of revisionists cannot be covered by Section 360. Cr PC. Simply because, the revisionists faced litigation from trial Court to this High Court, that cannot condone their criminal act. If this Court applied the principle of condonation on the ground of prolonged litigation and gives the culprits, the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act as mandated under Sec. 361, Cr PC that will send a wrong message and the offenders will think that no punishment is meant for, such criminal acts. 5. In the result, these revisions are dismissed.