Judgment :- 1. The revision petitioners are A-1, A-2, A-4 and A-5 in C.C.No.102 of 1997 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Kallakurichi. Totally there are five accused in the case. The learned Magistrate convicted the first accused for offences under Section 148 and 324 I.P.C. and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment under each offences. A-2 to A-5 were convicted under Section 147 I.P.C. and each were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment. The second accused was also convicted under Section 325 I.P.C. and sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of six months and was also directed to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment and A-3 to A-5 were convicted under Section 323 I.P.C. and each were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo two months simple imprisonment. Against the said conviction and sentence, A-1, A-2, A-4 and A-5 alone preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kallakurichi. 2. The appellate Court modified the conviction and sentence by convicting A-1, A-2, A-4 and A-5 under Section 148 I.P.C. and sentencing them to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo two months simple imprisonment; convicting A-1 and A-2 under Section 326 I.P.C. and sentencing them to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo four months simple imprisonment; and convicting A-5 under Section 323 I.P.C. and directing her to pay a fine of Rs.1,500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the revision petitioners, who are A-1, A-2, A-4 and A-5 have preferred this revision petition. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that P.W.1s sister-in-law was married to the second accused and as the second accused divorced her, there was enmity between the accused party and prosecution party. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the revision petitioners, who are A-1, A-2, A-4 and A-5 have preferred this revision petition. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that P.W.1s sister-in-law was married to the second accused and as the second accused divorced her, there was enmity between the accused party and prosecution party. On the date of occurrence, P.W.1 was going in a funeral procession and all the accused came there and the first accused attacked him with a koduval on his right shoulder, the second accused attacked him on the right hand with a stick, the third accused attacked him on his left shoulder with a stick, the fourth accused attacked him on the right thigh with a stone and the fifth accused beat him on left cheek. P.W.1 was taken to the hospital by his son, P.W.2 and the police came to the hospital and received the complaint, Ex.P.1, from him. 4. P.W.8, Inspector of Police, on receiving the complaint, registered a case in Crime No.340 of 1996 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 324 and 323 I.P.C. and prepared the printed First Information Report, Ex.P.7. P.W.8 took up investigation and examined the witnesses and after completing investigation, laid the final report. 5. The trial Court and the appellate Court, after considering the evidence, convicted and sentenced the accused as referred to above. 6. Mr. S. Shanmugavelayutham, learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioners, submitted that though P.W.1 had stated in his evidence that only his son had written the complaint, Ex.P.1, P.W.2 had not stated so in his evidence. He further submitted that the medical evidence does not corroborate the oral evidence of P.W.1. The learned senior counsel further pointed out that the appellate Court, though had no power to convict the accused for a graver offence, altered the conviction of the first and second accused to an offence under Section 326 I.P.C. without any reason and though the first accused alone was convicted under Section 148 I.P.C., the appellate Court convicted A-2, A-4 and A-5 also under Section 148 I.P.C. 7. The learned Government Advocate submitted that on getting information from the hospital, the police went there and obtained Ex.P.1 from P.W.1, in which, it is admitted that P.W.1 had affixed his thumb impression. The learned Government Advocate submitted that on getting information from the hospital, the police went there and obtained Ex.P.1 from P.W.1, in which, it is admitted that P.W.1 had affixed his thumb impression. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that as per the medical evidence, the victim has sustained fracture in his right hand. 8. This Court considered the submissions made by both parties and perused the judgments of both the Courts below and other records. 9. As far as the evidence of P.W.1 is concerned, he is an injured witness and the injuries sustained by him are also supported by the doctors, P.Ws.6 and 7 and as per the medical evidence, P.W.1 has sustained fractures in his right hand and in the right shoulder. On going through the materials, I find no reason to reject the evidence of P.W.1. 10. However, this Court finds from the judgment of the trial Court that A-1 alone was convicted under Section 148 I.P.C. and the other accused were convicted under Section 147 I.P.C.; but, the appellate Court convicted A-2, A-4 and A-5 also for the offence under Section 148 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. Similarly, the first accused, who was convicted only under Section 324 I.P.C. and the second accused, who was convicted under Section 325 I.P.C. by the trial Court, have been convicted by the appellate Court for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C. and the first accused who was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 324 I.P.C. by the trial Court, was directed to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- by the appellate Court. As far as the second accused is concerned, though his conviction was altered from Section 325 to Section 326 I.P.C., he was sentenced only to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and was not sentenced to undergo any imprisonment. Further, though A-3 to A-5 were convicted by the trial Court for an offence under Section 323 I.P.C., and each were directed to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in the appellate Court, the fifth accused was directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,500/- for the same offence. 11. From the above, it is evident that the appellate Court has enhanced the fine amounts and also convicted some of them for a grave charge. 11. From the above, it is evident that the appellate Court has enhanced the fine amounts and also convicted some of them for a grave charge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kallakurichi, has not understood the power of the appellate Court, as envisaged under Section 386 Cr.P.C., which reads as hereunder:- "386. Powers of the Appellate Court. 11. From the above, it is evident that the appellate Court has enhanced the fine amounts and also convicted some of them for a grave charge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kallakurichi, has not understood the power of the appellate Court, as envisaged under Section 386 Cr.P.C., which reads as hereunder:- "386. Powers of the Appellate Court. - After perusing such record and hearing the appellant or his pleader, if he appears, and the Public Prosecutor if he appears and in case of an appeal under Section 377 or Section 378, the accused, if he appears, the Appellate Court may, if it considers that there is no sufficient ground for interfering, dismiss the appeal or may - .(a) in an appeal from an order of acquittal, reserve such order and direct that further inquiry be made, or that the accused be re-tried or committed for trial, as the case may be, or find him guilty and pass sentence on him according to law; .(b) in an appeal from a conviction – .(i) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge the accused or order him to be re-tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction subordinate to such Appellate Court or committed for trial, or (ii) alter the finding, maintaining the sentence, or (iii)with or without altering the finding, alter the nature or the extent, or the nature and extent, of the sentence, but not so as to enhance the same; .(c) in an appeal for enhancement of sentence - .(i) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge the accused or order him to be re-tried by a Court competent to try the offence, or .(ii) alter the finding, maintaining the sentence, or (iii) with or without altering the finding, alter the nature or the extent, or the nature and extent, of the sentence, so as to enhance or reduce the same; .(d) in an appeal from any other order, alter or reverse such order; .(e) make any amendment or any consequential or incidental order that may be just or proper: Provided that the sentence shall not be enhanced unless the accused has had an opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement: Provided further that the Appellate Court shall not inflict greater punishment for the offence which in its opinion the accused has committed than might have been inflicted for that offence by the Court passing the order or sentence under appeal." 12. As per section 386 Cr.P.C. given above, in an appeal from a conviction, the appellate Court has no power to enhance the nature and extent of the offence and the sentence. 13. In this case, the appellate Court has altered the conviction of A-2, A-4 and A-5 from Section 147 I.P.C. to Section 148 I.P.C. and also enhanced the fine amount. Similarly, the conviction on the first and second accused under Sections 324 and 325 has also been altered to Section 326 I.P.C. and as far as sentence of the first accused is concerned, the fine amount was enhanced to Rs.5,000/-. With regard to A-5 also, the sentence of fine amount of Rs.500/- has been enhanced to Rs.1,500/- for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. 14. In view of Clause (b)(iii) to Section 386 Cr.P.C., I am of the confirmed opinion that the modifications made by the appellate Court with regard to the offence and sentence are to be set aside and accordingly, they are set aside and the conviction made by the trial Court is restored by this order. With regard to the sentence on the second accused alone for the offence under Section 325 I.P.C., the sentence of imprisonment for a period of six months is set aside and instead, he is directed to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. The fine amount already paid by the petitioners/accused shall be adjusted and if any excess amount of fine had been paid on the basis of the appellate Court judgment, it shall be refunded. With the above modification, the revision petition is partly allowed.