JUDGMENT Heard Mr. V.G. Bhamburkar, learned counsel along with Mrs. S.P. Kulkarni, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. D.B. Patel, learned APP for the respondent. 2. Admit. 3. Mrs. S.P. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the applicant tenders on record the copy of the paper book prepared by the Appellate Court i.e. Sessions Court at Akola regarding Criminal Appeal No.30/2011 preferred by the applicant and dismissed by the said Court. The same is taken on record and marked as "X". 4. The learned counsel for the applicant states that in view of the application being pressed on the limited ground i.e. excessiveness of the quantum of sentence awarded by the trial Court and maintained by the appellate Court, the application in revision be taken up for hearing dispensing formal order of calling the record and proceedings. 5. Taken up for hearing in view of learned APP having consented the said request. 6. By this application in revision, the applicant/original accused in Regular Criminal Case No.1029/2009 of the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akola, has assailed the judgment and order dated 7th February, 2011 passed by the trial Court convicting him for commission of offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for 6 (six) months and to pay fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer S.I. for 5 days, as well as the order dated 12th June, 2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2011 preferred by him challenging the judgment and order passed by the trial Court and thus maintaining the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. 7. Mrs. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is not challenging the findings of his guilt arrived by the trial Court for commission of offence under Section 323 of I.P.C. and maintained by the appellate Court and pressing the application only on the count of sentence awarded to him being excessive and harsh. The learned counsel submitted that said case has emerged from the charge sheet submitted by Borgaon-Manju Police Station regarding the report Exh.15 lodged by PW-1 Bhulabai regarding an incident occurred on 9th October, 2009 during which the applicant had dealt a fist blow upon the nose of PW 1 causing her a simple injury. The learned counsel submitted that said case has emerged from the charge sheet submitted by Borgaon-Manju Police Station regarding the report Exh.15 lodged by PW-1 Bhulabai regarding an incident occurred on 9th October, 2009 during which the applicant had dealt a fist blow upon the nose of PW 1 causing her a simple injury. The learned counsel submitted that the prosecution at the trial has examined in all four witnesses in said case i.e. victim PW 1 Bhulabai, her daughter PW-2 Saraswatibai to whom PW 1 had reported about occurring of incident, panch PW-3 Rajesh for a panchnama of a place at which the incident in question had occurred and PW-4 Dr. Pravin Avachar who had examined the victim and issued medical certificate Exh.21. 8. The learned counsel by drawing the attention to the evidence of PW4 submitted that his evidence does not disclose that during the x-ray examination effected occurring of fracture to nasal bone of PW-1 was detected. It was urged that the evidence of PW-1 as found corroborated by the evidence of PW-2, does not reveal that during incident the applicant beyond giving a fist blow in moment of anger, had committed any act. It was urged that thus prosecution evidence having not transcended beyond the applicant in the heat of anger having given a single blow causing simple injury to PW-1, the sentence of six months awarded for commission of offence under Section 323 of I.P.C. with a fine of Rs.100/- is unduly harsh and excessive. The learned counsel prayed that such sentence awarded be reduced and appropriate sentence may be given to the applicant for the act committed after taking into consideration the circumstances in which the same was committed. The learned counsel further submitted that whole object of imposing punishment being not for punishing individual but for eradicating the criminal element existing in it, the sentence ordered by the trial Court and maintained by the appellate Court is apparently unduly harsh and deserves to be reduced by partly allowing the application in revision. 9. Mr. D.B. Patel, learned APP on the contrary supported the judgment and order assailed and urged that considering the age of the applicant and age of the victim and relationship in between them, imposing of such a sentence for commission of such act by the grandson with grandmother can neither be said to be harsh nor excessive. 9. Mr. D.B. Patel, learned APP on the contrary supported the judgment and order assailed and urged that considering the age of the applicant and age of the victim and relationship in between them, imposing of such a sentence for commission of such act by the grandson with grandmother can neither be said to be harsh nor excessive. It is submitted that the concurrent findings arrived at by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court regarding guilt of the applicant as well as regarding the sentence imposed, does not warrant to be quashed/set aside or reduced, as canvassed. It is submitted that the sentence awarded by the trial Court being within the parameters of the sentence prescribed for offence under Section 323 of I.P.C., no interference with it is warranted in revisional jurisdiction. 10. After giving anxious considerations to the submissions canvassed and after taking into consideration the evidence of victim PW1 Bhulabai of incident occurred, as well as the evidence of PW2 Saraswatibai i.e. the daughter of Bhulabai to whom the matters were reported by PW 1 prior to lodging of the first information report Exh.15, there appears all substance in the submission canvassed by learned counsel that incident in question had occurred at the spur of moment in heat of anger. The learned counsel was fully justified in submitting that such act having occurred due to applicant losing self control, it cannot be said that applicant was primarily entertaining intention of causing injury to PW 1. 11. The perusal of the evidence of PW 4 also justifies the submission canvassed that the prosecution though alleged that applicant having committed an offence under Section 325 of I.P.C., failed to establish it. Thus after taking into consideration all facets of crime in question, the submission canvassed that sentence of six months imprisonment imposed is unduly harsh and excessive cannot be said to be devoid of merits. Hence the same deserves to be reduced to the extent of the appropriate sentence to be awarded for commission of such offence having due regard to the circumstances in which the crime in question has taken place. 12. Hence the same deserves to be reduced to the extent of the appropriate sentence to be awarded for commission of such offence having due regard to the circumstances in which the crime in question has taken place. 12. Resultantly considering the nature of act committed by the applicant, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months with a payment of fine of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof the further sentence of simple imprisonment for 15 days would serve the ends of justice. Accordingly this application in revision is partly allowed by quashing and setting aside the sentence as imposed by the trial Court and maintained by the appellate Court by reducing it to the tune of rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months with a payment of fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default thereof the further sentence of simple imprisonment for 15 days. In the event of payment of fine as ordered, the said amount be paid to PW1 by way of compensation. Application partly allowed.