JUDGMENT :- Petitioner came to be convicted of the offence punishable under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer RI for six months and to pa) a find of Rs.300/-, in default of fine, to suffer RI for one month, by the order dated 9-5-1995 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Firs Class, Navapur. The petitioner preferred an appeal, being Criminal Appeal No.37-1995. The appeal was dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nandurbar by his order dated 28-11-1997. Thus, petitioner is now challenging these orders on the ground that the findings recorded by the lower Courts are not in conformity with the evidence on record. 2. The facts, in nutshell, are Complainant Jalamsingh, his neighbour Dharamdas, petitioner Hiraji and his nephew Kashiram are natives of Sulipada (Zamanzira). There is a tribal custom to worship "Lord Hanuman" on the auspicious occasion of "Dussera". For this purpose contribution of Rs.1/- is made by the villagers. On 6th October, 1992 villages had gathered at the temple. The petitioner was collecting contribution from the villagers. Some of them were not in position to make the payment. Therefore, complainant Jalamsingh asked the petitioner not to humiliate them. This enraged the petitioner and there was exchange of hot words between them. On the same day, while complainant and Dharamdas were returning from the village streamlet, after taking bath, and were passing over the house of the petitioner, the petitioner came out from the house with an axe and dealt a blow on the on the left shoulder of complainant. When Dharamdas went to him rescue, the petitioner dealt a blow on him cutting his right index finger at the middle phalangeal joint; the finger came to be amputed subsequently. In response to cries of the victims, neighbours Omkar and brothers of complainant came to the scene of occurrence and intervened. Victims were immediately shifted to Rural Hospital, at Navapur where they were examined by Dr. Vasave (PW 6). After receiving treatment, complainant lodged FIR (Exh.15). On the basis of FIR, an offence came to be registered. On the conclusion of the investigation charge-sheet came to be filed. 3. Victims were immediately shifted to Rural Hospital, at Navapur where they were examined by Dr. Vasave (PW 6). After receiving treatment, complainant lodged FIR (Exh.15). On the basis of FIR, an offence came to be registered. On the conclusion of the investigation charge-sheet came to be filed. 3. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Judicial Magistrate, F.C. Navapur convicted the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 325 of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer RI for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- in default, to suffer RI for one month. 4. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of sentence and conviction passed by the ld. Magistrate. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court after considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for respective parties and after going through the evidence on record, dismissed the appeal by his order dated 28-11-1997. The petitioner has challenged these orders in the present Revision. 5. At the outset, Shri. C. R. Desphande, learned counsel for petitioner made it clear that the judgments of Courts below are challenged only on the ground of appreciation of evidence since the same are not in conformity with the evidence on record. The findings recorded by Courts below are, therefore, perverse and liable to be set aside. No legal infirmity or other glaring defect is referred to by the learned counsel. For the purpose of substantiating his contention, learned counsel has taken the Court almost through the entire record. According to him, there are improvements and omissions in the testimony of complainant Jalamsingh and injured Dharamdas. He has referred to these inconsistencies. It is also pointed out that independent witness Omkar is a distant relative of complainant. According to him, in this view of the matter, no reliance should have been placed on the testimony of these witnesses. It is further submitted that Panchnama in respect of the scene of occurrence is also not proved as one of the Panchas has turned hostile. According to learned counsel, appreciation of evidence by the lower Courts is perverse, therefore, order of conviction and sentence passed by the lower Courts deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. It is pertinent to point out there that similar contentions were advanced before the Appellate Judge by Advocate Sharma. The learned Judge has dealt with these submissions in Para no.9 onwards. 6. It is pertinent to point out there that similar contentions were advanced before the Appellate Judge by Advocate Sharma. The learned Judge has dealt with these submissions in Para no.9 onwards. The learned Judge of the Lower Appellate Court, ignored the evidence of discovery as the discovery was not proved. Having regard to the evidence of Panch-Ramdas and neighbour Omkar, learned Judge did not accept the contention that the spot is not properly fixed and that incident had not taken place in front of the house of petitioner. It can be seen that the witnesses are rustic witnesses. In this background learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nandurbaras well as the Trial Judge have considered the omissions and improvements made by complainant in his testimony. It was found that contradictions and omissions are not of such a nature to falsify their entire evidence. The learned Appellate Judge referred to the maxim "falsus in uno falsus omnibus" and has commenced that this maxim is not applicable in our country. After considering the nature of minor omissions and improvements:- it was found by the both the Courts below that evidence of injured which was received corroboration from the medical evidence as well as independent witness Omkar (PW 3) deserves credence. It can, therefore, be seen that the contention of learned counsel that the appreciation of evidence is not proper cannot be sustained. 7. While exercising revisional jurisdictional the Court has to ensure that the judgment rendered by the Lower Courts do not suffer from any illegality. The jurisdiction can only be exercised for preventing miscarriage of justice. In the present case, it can be seen that the findings recorded by the lower Courts are based on the sound reasoning. No other illegality is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner. In this view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. 8. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that having regard to the passage of time and the fact that the petitioner does not have criminal antecedents leniency be shown. According to him, ends to justice would be met if fine is increased and the remission is given in respect of substantive sentence of imprisonment. The fact that the petitioner does not have criminal antecedents and the passage of time are the factors which can be taken into consideration is showing some leniency. According to him, ends to justice would be met if fine is increased and the remission is given in respect of substantive sentence of imprisonment. The fact that the petitioner does not have criminal antecedents and the passage of time are the factors which can be taken into consideration is showing some leniency. However, in this case, deterrent theory of punishment is applied. Therefore, imposition of fine alone will not be proper. It has to be ensured that others similarly situated are deterred from committing similar offences. Revision Application is, therefore, dismissed. The order of conviction as sentence passed by the lower Courts is confirmed. Petitioner shall surrender to bail before the lower Court on or before 31st March, 2006 for serving remaining portion of the sentence. Rule discharged.