JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. : In both the Crl. Revisions the order of conviction and sentence passed by learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Athagarh in S.T. Case No.129/2002(15/2002) which was confirmed by learned Ad hoc Addl. Sessions, F.T.C., Athagarh in Crl. Appeal No.18/2003 is assailed. 2. Both the cases having arisen out of the same judgment, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. On the basis of an F.I.R. (Ext.5) lodged by P.W.5, the criminal action was set in motion, G.R. Case No.51/2000 was registered on the file of learned S.D.J.M., Athagarh and the present petitioners faced trial for alleged commission of of¬fences under Sections 147, 148, 294, 324, 325, 307 and 149 of the I.P.C. It was alleged that the accused persons had assembled on 13th February, 2001 at 5 P.M. being armed with different weapons with a view to kill P.W.6, attacked him (P.W.6) as a result the latter sustained bleeding injuries on the head and other parts. It was further alleged that the accused persons also dealt blows on P.Ws.2 and 1 being the mother and father respectively of P.W.6. They also created a scene of terror in the locality and threatened P.W.6. and others to murder them. The F.I.R. (Ext.5) was lodged on the next date of the alleged occurrence at 2 P.M. at the Khuntuni Outpost. 3. The plea of defence was complete denial. 4. In order to substantiate its case prosecution got examined 8 witnesses and exhibited certain document. On behalf of the defence though no oral evidence was adduced two documents were exhibited. After analyzing the evidence, both oral and docu¬mentary, the trial Court held that accused persons guilty of commission of offences under Sections 148, 324, 149 of the I.P.C. and convicted them there under, but then acquitted them for the offence under Sections 147, 325, 307, 506 and 149 of the I.P.C. on the ground that prosecution failed to substantiate commission of the said offences. Considering the fact that the accused were first offenders the trial Court sentenced each of them to undergo R.I. for one year under Section 148 I.P.C. and R.I. for one year under Section 324 I.P.C subject to set off as provided under Section 428 I.P.C. 5. Being aggrieved all the petitioners filed Crl. Appeal before the Sessions Court. Considering the fact that the accused were first offenders the trial Court sentenced each of them to undergo R.I. for one year under Section 148 I.P.C. and R.I. for one year under Section 324 I.P.C subject to set off as provided under Section 428 I.P.C. 5. Being aggrieved all the petitioners filed Crl. Appeal before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court once again discussed the materials and arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution was successful in proving commission of the offences by the accused-appellants as had been held by the Trial Court. The appeal was dismissed and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence was confirmed. Out of five, four accused persons have preferred Crl. Revision No.812/2004 and the other accused being Laxmidhar has filed Crl. Revision No.762/2005. 6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the Court below lost sight of the fact that there was inter se dispute and a group clash in which the members of both the groups had sustained injuries. It was further submitted that the conclu¬sions arrived at by the Court below were based on surmises and it is a fit case where the order of conviction should be set aside. 7. The submissions made by learned counsel for the peti¬tioners are strongly repudiated by learned counsel for the State. He forcefully submitted that the Courts below have appreciated all the evidence and the order of convection and sentence is just and proper. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials available. The evidence clearly reveals that there was a group clash. The Courts below disbelieved the prosecution evidence and have acquitted/confirmed the acquittal of the accused persons of the offence under Sections 147, 325, 307, 506 and 149 I.P.C. whereas on the same set of evidence convicted the accused persons for the other offences. The medical evidence and the injury report clearly revealed that the injuries sustained were simple in nature. There is also some force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the injuries sustained by the accused persons were not explained by the prosecution. 9. The medical evidence and the injury report clearly revealed that the injuries sustained were simple in nature. There is also some force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the injuries sustained by the accused persons were not explained by the prosecution. 9. Taking a cumulative assessment of all these facts and in view of the fact that the Courts below have vividly discussed the evidence and the reasoning arrived at by them are neither perverse nor unreasonable, in exercise of revisional power I am not inclined to set aside the order of conviction. However, taking a liberal view, I modify the sentence reducing the same from R.I. for one year on each count to R.I. for six moths on each count and imposing a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thou¬sand) each on each count, in default to undergo R.I. for a fur¬ther period of two moths. The sentences of imprisonment are to run concurrently. The period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioners shall be set off as per the provisions of the Cr.P.C. With the aforesaid modification both the Crl. Revisions are disposed of. Crl. Revision disposed of.