ORDER K.N. KESHAVANARAYANA, J.—Learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to take notice for the Respondent-State. 2. Heard Sri P.M. Siddamallappa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri G.M. Srinivasa Reddy, learned HCGP, appearing for the Respondent-State. 3. This revision petition filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr. P.C. by petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 who were Accused Nos. 1 to 3 is directed against the concurrent judgment of the Courts below convicting Accused Nos. 1 to 8 for the offences punishable under Sections 823 and 506 read with 84 of IPC and sentencing them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for those offences and convicting Accused No. 1 for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 427 of IPC and sentencing him to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- for the said offences in C.C. No. 1513/2007 dated 29.11.2008 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & JMFC, Mandya, and affirmed in Crl. A. No. 125/2008. 4. The petitioners were charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 427, 504 and 506 read with 34 of IPC inter alia on the allegation that on 22.3.2007 at about 9.15 p.m., all the three accused persons went to the shop of P.W. 1-C.R. Jagadeesh situate in Mandya and asked for a pack of cigarette on credit, and since P.W. 1 refused to give cigarette pack on credit. Accused No. 1 abused and insulted P.W. 1 in filthy language, destroyed the telephone coin box which was fixed in front of the shop and also glass bottles kept in the shop and thereafter Accused No. 1 assaulted P.W. 1 causing him serious injuries and at that moment Accused Nos. 2 and 3 who were standing outside the shop pulled P.W. 1 outside and all the three accused by sharing common intention, assaulted P.W. 1 and thereby caused hurt to P.W. 1. 5. The petitioners pleaded not guilty for the charges levelled against them and claimed to be tried. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 5 and got marked Exs. P1 to P5 and also M.Os. 1 to 3. The defence of the accused was one of total denial and that of false implication. 6. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 5 and got marked Exs. P1 to P5 and also M.Os. 1 to 3. The defence of the accused was one of total denial and that of false implication. 6. After hearing both sides and on assessment of oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate by the judgment dated 29.11.2008 held Accused Nos. 1 to 3 guilty of the charges levelled against them for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 406 read with 34 of IPC. In addition, Accused No. 1 was also found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 427 of IPC and they were sentenced to undergo imprisonment and to pay fine as noticed supra. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence the petitioners filed appeal before the Sessions Court at Manda in Crl. A. No. 125/2008. The appeal came to be dismissed by the judgment dated 8.4.2008 affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court. It is against these concurrent judgment of the Courts below, the petitioners have presented this petition. 7. This Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of Cr. P.C. cannot re-appreciate the evidence. The scope of interference in revision under Section 397 of Cr. P.C., is very limited and only if it is shown that there is error of law or jurisdiction, this Court could interfere with the orders of the Courts below. 8. I have carefully read the judgment of the Courts below and I find no error of law or jurisdiction having been committed by the Courts below. The trial Court after referring to the oral evidence of material witnesses recorded finding that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 clearly establishes the incident, of assault on P.W. 1 by Accused Nos. 1 to 3. The evidence of P.W. 4-Dr. Nagarathnamma, would establish the presence of injury on the person of P.W. 1 and thus the testimony of P.Ws. 1 and 2 gain corroboration from the medical evidence. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as per the medical evidence, there was only one injury found on the person of P.W. 1 whereas according to the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 gain corroboration from the medical evidence. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as per the medical evidence, there was only one injury found on the person of P.W. 1 whereas according to the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, Accused No. 1 first assaulted P.W. 1 with Iron stand and thereafter all the three accused jointly assaulted him and, therefore, the version of P.Ws. 1 and 2 that, all the three accused assaulted P.W. 1 cannot be accepted. However, it is not the say of P.W. 1 or P.W. 2 that even Accused 2 and 3 assaulted P.W. 1 with any weapon. What has been stated by Dr. Nagarathnamma in her evidence is that, there were two scratch injuries on both, the forearms and scratch injury on the chest. Thus, close reading of the evidence of P.W. 4 indicates that there were in all three injuries found on the person of P.W. 1. Therefore, there is no substance in the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 9. From the totality of the evidence on record, the learned Magistrate, in my opinion, has rightly recorded the finding that all the three accused came near the shop together and Accused No. 1 demanded P.W. 1 to give a pack of cigarette on credit and when P.W. 1 refused to do so. Accused No. 1 damaged the bottles kept in the shop and also assaulted P.W. 1 and on seeing this, Accused Nos. 2 and 3 also joined Accused No. 1 and assaulted P.W. 1. There are no reasons for P.Ws. 1 and 2 to depose falsehood against Accused Nos. 1 to 3. It is not the say of the accused that there was any kind of enmity or ill-will between them on the one hand and P.W. 1 on the other hand. Therefore, there was no reason for P.W. 1 to depose falsehood to implicate the accused, P.W. 1 being an injured eye-witness, his evidence carries greater weight. Undisputedly, he is the owner of the shop, where the incident occurred. Having regard to the evidence on record, the trial Court is justified in recording finding of guilt against Accused Nos. 1 to 3. The Appellate Court on reappreciation of evidence, has found that there is no perversity or illegality in the judgment of the trial Court. Undisputedly, he is the owner of the shop, where the incident occurred. Having regard to the evidence on record, the trial Court is justified in recording finding of guilt against Accused Nos. 1 to 3. The Appellate Court on reappreciation of evidence, has found that there is no perversity or illegality in the judgment of the trial Court. Both the Courts below have assigned cogent and acceptable reasons for accepting the oral evidence led by the prosecution. Thus, I find no error of law or jurisdiction having been committed by the Courts below warranting interference by this Court. In this view of the matter, 1 find no grounds to interfere with the judgment of conviction recorded by the Courts below. The order of sentence insofar as Accused No. 1 is concerned, is just and proper having regard to the nature of the offence for which he was found guilty and the manner in which he committed those offences. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of sentence passed against. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 warrants interference by this Court. Even according to the case of the prosecution, Accused Nos. 2 and 3 stood outside the shop and they joined Accused No. 1 to assault. P.W. 1 at the end. They were not armed with any weapon, but they appear to have fisted P.W. 1. Under these circumstances, the interest of justice would be met by sentencing Accused Nos. 2 and 3 to pay fine instead of sending them to jail. 10. In this view of the matter, the revision petition is allowed in part. The judgment of conviction recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court convicting the petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506 read with 34 of IPC and convicting Accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Sections 504 and 427 of IPC is hereby affirmed. The order of sentence passed against Accused No. 1 for the aforesaid offences is hereby affirmed. However, in modification of the order of sentence passed against Accused Nos. 2 and 3, they are sentenced to pay fine of Rs. The order of sentence passed against Accused No. 1 for the aforesaid offences is hereby affirmed. However, in modification of the order of sentence passed against Accused Nos. 2 and 3, they are sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) each for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506 read with 34 of IPC and in default to pay fine, they shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two months. Out of the recovered fine amount, a sum of Rs. 2,000/- shall be paid as compensation to P.W. 1.