Judgment :- 1. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:- On 19.01.2008, at about 6.30 p.m., the defacto complainant had proceeded to Kharadi Chittoor to attend a death funeral. At that time, the first and second accused had picked a wordy quarrel with him and thereafter, the second accused had beaten the defacto complainant with log wood and the first accused inflicted injuries on the head of the complainant. In the result, he had sustained simple injuries. Thereafter, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.29 of 2008, on the file of Kachirapalayam Police Station for the offence under Section 294(b), 323 and 324 IPC. 2. The said case was tried, after the accused denied their guilt in the said offence. 3. On the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.8, listed witness were examined and documentary Exs.P1 to P8 were marked. No material evidence was produced. 4. P.W.1, Veerasami had adduced evidence that on 19.01.2008, at about 6 p.m., the occurrence took place at Kharadi Chittoor, Behtichetti house, and at the time of occurrence, the second accused viz., Dhanapalan had demanded him to provide arrack. He told him that he had no money. In the meantime, the first accused-Govindan intervened and told the second accused that he did not have any business with the complainant and used abusive language towards P.W.1. At that time, the second accused took a log wood and assaulted P.W.1 on his thigh. The first accused inflicted injuries on his head with his "Koduval". The third accused viz., Anjalai pressed his vital organs. The fourth accused, caught her brother-Sivakumar who intervened in the occurrence and attempted to effect compromise. The same was witnessed by the surrounding people. Thereafter, the injured persons had rushed to the Government Hospital, Kallakurichi, wherein the injured had given statement to P.W.6, Sub Inspector of Police, who registered a complaint which was marked as Ex.P1. 5. P.W.2, Sivakumar, had adduced evidence stating that P.W.1 was his brother and the occurrence had happened on 19.01.2008 at about 6 p.m. The second accused-Danapal had demanded brandy from his brother P.W.1. When P.W.1 replied that he had no money, a quarrel ensued. Hence, the second accused assaulted P.W.1 on his left leg joint with log wood. The first accused-Govindan inflicted injuries on the head of P.W.1. with his "koduval". Immediately, he had intervened and tried to prevent the same. When P.W.1 replied that he had no money, a quarrel ensued. Hence, the second accused assaulted P.W.1 on his left leg joint with log wood. The first accused-Govindan inflicted injuries on the head of P.W.1. with his "koduval". Immediately, he had intervened and tried to prevent the same. At that time, the fourth accused Rani caught hold of him.; Again, the first accused attempted to inflict injuries on him. He tried to escape. In spite of this, the first accused inflicted injuries on his left eyebrow. The same was witnessed by many persons. He further stated that he had undergone treatment as inpatient for a period of three days at Government Hospital, Kallakurichi. 6. P.W.3, Periasamy and P.W.4, Arjunan had also adduced evidence which were corroborative of evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. P.W.5, doctor had adduced evidence, stating that on 19.01.2008, at about 7.15 p.m., the P.W.2 came to the Hospital for treatment and he had told her that four persons had assaulted him nearby his house, with "Koduval", log wood and stone. She had examined the injured and gave an opinion that lacerated wounds were sustained on the eyebrow of P.W.2, to an extent of 3 x 1 cms; that the second wound was also a lacerated injury on the back left of his head to an extent of 2 x 1 cms; that both the wounds are simple in nature; that P.W.2 has undergone treatment as inpatient. The doctor has marked the Ex.P3, i.e, the accident report. On the very same day, P.W.1 came to the hospital and told her that five persons had assaulted him at Kharadi Chittoor nearby his house with "Koduval", log wood and stone. The P.W.5 doctor further stated that she had also examined the P.W.1, injured person viz., Veerasamy and had found that he had sustained lacerated injuries on his forehead, to an extent of 2 x 1 cm. She certified the same and in support of her evidence marked Ex.P4. 7. P.W.6, Harikumar, Sub Inspector of Police, had stated in his evidence that on 25.01.2008, he had received information about the occurrence; that on the basis of the said information, a criminal case had been registered in Crime No.29 of 2008; that on the very same day, accused 1 to 3 were arrested and produced before the Court. 8. 7. P.W.6, Harikumar, Sub Inspector of Police, had stated in his evidence that on 25.01.2008, he had received information about the occurrence; that on the basis of the said information, a criminal case had been registered in Crime No.29 of 2008; that on the very same day, accused 1 to 3 were arrested and produced before the Court. 8. P.W.8, Rajinikanth, Sub Inspector of Police had adduced evidence stating that on 21.01.2008, the head constable-Rajendran, who was the station house officer at that time went to Government Hospital, Kallakurichi and collected statements from the injured persons, wherein the injured persons were admitted as inpatients. P.W.8, had further stated that on 22.01.2008, at about 22.30 p.m., he had inspected the occurrence place and prepared observation mahazar and also registered the F.I.R. in Crime No.29 of 2008, for offence under Sections 294(b), 323 and 324 IPC. The F.I.R. was marked as Ex.P6 and observation mahazar was marked as Ex.P7 and rough sketch was marked as Ex.P8. P.W.8 further stated that he had conducted enquiry with the witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.7 and he had also adduced evidence which is corroborative with the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. 9. On the side of the defence, no witnesses, no documentary evidence. 10. On considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and on arguments advanced by the learned counsels on both sides, the learned judge had come to a conclusion that the second and third accused are not guilty of offence under Section 323 of I.P.C and that the first accused was guilty of offence under Section 324 of I.P.C, under two counts. Therefore, the learned Magistrate sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, he was to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The fourth accused was found guilt under Section 341 of I.P.C and she was imposed a fine of Rs.400/- in default, she was to undergo one month simple imprisonment. The learned Magistrate further found the first accused also guilty of offence under Section 294(b) of I.P.C, for which he imposed a fine of a sum of Rs.300/-in default, he was to undergo one month simple imprisonment. 11. Aggrieved by the said judgment and conviction, the appellant/A1 had filed an appeal in C.A.No.35 of 2009 before the Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram. 11. Aggrieved by the said judgment and conviction, the appellant/A1 had filed an appeal in C.A.No.35 of 2009 before the Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram. The learned judge, after hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsels on both sides and on perusing the impugned judgment of the trial Court, had observed that before filing a complaint to the respondent police, there was enmity between P.W.1 and the accused herein. The evidence of P.W.1 and the contents of the F.I.R are corroborative with one another. The occurrence took place at the death ceremony, wherein public had assembled and they had witnessed the said incident. The same was narrated by P.W.1 and P.W.2 which were corroborative with one another. The learned judge further observed that there was no infirmityon the documentary evidence furnished by the prosecution as well as in the oral evidence. In the result, the learned appellate judge held the first accused guilty of offence under Section 294(b), 324 (2 counts) and the fourth accused guilty of offence under Section 341. As such, he confirmed the conviction and sentence. The learned judge further observed that P.W.1 and P.W.2 had sustained injuries and hence modified the sentence to one under Section 324 of IPC (2 counts) and imposed a sentence of simple imprisonment of three months on the first accused on each count. The learned judge further ordered that the first accused was found guilty under Section 294(b) and the fourth accused was also found guilty under Section 341 of I.P.C. and hence confirmed the sentence of the trial Court on these counts. 12. Aggrieved by the said modified judgment, the revision petitioner / accused has filed the above revision. 13. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.3 are closely related and interested witnesses. P.W.4 and P.W.7 had stated that their signatures were obtained in the police station. P.W.1 and P.W.3 were attacked by the weapon "koduval" and log wood which were not seized. P.W.1 had stated in his evidence that the second accused had assaulted with log wood and the first accused had inflicted injuries with "koduval". The learned counsel further stated that while the defacto complainant was undergoing treatment at Government Hospital, Kallakurichi he had informed the doctor that some unidentified persons had attacked him with "koduval", log wood and stone. P.W.1 had stated in his evidence that the second accused had assaulted with log wood and the first accused had inflicted injuries with "koduval". The learned counsel further stated that while the defacto complainant was undergoing treatment at Government Hospital, Kallakurichi he had informed the doctor that some unidentified persons had attacked him with "koduval", log wood and stone. As such, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 are not corroborative with one another. 14. The learned counsel further submits that the defacto complainant and the accused are relatives and they had assembled to attend the death funeral at their relatives house. The accused is an illiterate man. He is involved in agricultural operations as coolie. Already, he had suffered 12 days in judicial custody. He had also paid a fine of Rs.1,000/-. The accused is the only breadwinner of his family and his family members depend upon his income which he is getting from his avocation of being an agriculture coolie. Hence, the learned counsel prays for lenient treatment of the revision petitioner. The learned counsel specifically stated that now cordial relations are prevailing among the parties. 15. The learned counsel for the State would submit that the respondent police had established the prosecution case before the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court beyond doubt, through relevant evidence. Initially, the trial Court awarded punishment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.1,000/-was imposed. The same was modified by the learned Sessions Judge from one year to three months. As such, the accused has to undergo imprisonment for the remaining period of sentence. 16. Per contra, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the accused is a coolie and also cultivates a part of land under lease basis. Now, the groundnut seedlings are standing over the said land. Hence, the learned counsel prays the Court to treat the accused as leniently as possible. 17. On verifying the prosecution case and on hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned judgment and sentence of the first appellate Court passed in C.A.No.35 of 2009, on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram, dated 08.12.2009, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the said judgment. 17. On verifying the prosecution case and on hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned judgment and sentence of the first appellate Court passed in C.A.No.35 of 2009, on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram, dated 08.12.2009, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the said judgment. However, the revision petitioner / accused had already undergone simple imprisonment for a period of 12 days and he had paid a fine of a sum of Rs.1,000/- as fine amount, which is an adequate one. Therefore, the rest of the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the accused is waived and the accused is set at liberty. Accordingly, ordered. 18. Resultantly, the above Criminal Revision is partly allowed. Consequently, the judgment and conviction dated 08.12.2009 made in C.A.No.35 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Villupuram, modifying the judgment dated 28.10.2009 made in C.C.No.216 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kallakurichi is modified.