JUDGMENT M.T. Joshi, J. 1. Heard both sides. The present petitioners were convicted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded in R.C.C. No. 188 of 1992, for the offences punishable under section 147, 148, 324, 326 read with section 149 of the I.P. Code. Each of them were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offences punishable under section 147 and 148 of the I.P. Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under section 326 read with section 149 of the I.P. Code. Different sentences regarding the fine were imposed on the petitioners. 2. In Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 1993, the learned Sessions Judge, Nanded has confirmed the said order by dismissing the appeal. Hence, the present Criminal Revision Application. 3. In nutshell, the prosecution alleged as under:- That, P.W. 1 Narayan Sirsila - the complainant was, during the material time, holding a post of cashier for one trust of Dattatraya temple. Some other persons were its office bearers. The dispute arose between him and some of the Committee members, including the present revision petitioners, regarding the account to be furnished by complainant P.W. 1 Narayan. The complainant always used to show his readiness to show the accounts but only in the general body meeting. Over the said dispute, earlier certain criminal case and criminal complaints were filed. In the circumstances, the incident took place on 15th March, 1992 at about 10.00 p.m. 4. According to the complainant, on 15th March, 1992 at 10.00 p.m., the complainant Narayan was proceeding on a scooter alongwith his brother P.W. 2 Gopal from near the house of Pahelwan. At that time, all the present revision petitioners alongwith the acquitted accused came there. They obstructed the scooter. Accused No. 5/present revision petitioner No. 4 Ganesh attempted to stab the complainant in the stomach with knife. He (complainant), however, prevented the same by his right hand and therefore, an injury was received on his right palm. Accused No. 8/present revision petitioner No. 5 Ashaya @ Ashok gave a blow of knife on the left elbow causing grievous injury. Accused No. 2/present revision petitioner No. 2 Radhaswami gave a blow of stick on his left forearm due to which the hand was fractured. Accused No. 9 Ajaya and accused No. 10 Narsing beat on the complainant's back with wooden sticks. Accused No. 2/present revision petitioner No. 2 Radhaswami gave a blow of stick on his left forearm due to which the hand was fractured. Accused No. 9 Ajaya and accused No. 10 Narsing beat on the complainant's back with wooden sticks. His brother P.W. 2 Gopal was also injured in the incident. It was witnessed by various eye witnesses, including P.W. 3 Devidas. 5. According to the deposition of P.W. 1 complainant Narayan and P.W. 2 Gopal, they reported the incident to the Police Station, Vazirabad, Nanded. Both of them were first sent to the Civil Hospital, nanded and thereafter F.I.R. at Exh-45 was recorded in the next morning at 4 a.m., for the offences, as detailed supra. P.W. 5 Head Constable Gopinath Kamble conducted the investigation in the case. He recorded the statements of various witnesses, collected the injury certificate and after investigation, filed chargesheet. 6. The prosecution has examined in all six witnesses, including P.W. 1 Narayan (complainant) and P.W. 2 Gopal - injured witness. P.W. 3 Devidas was examined as eye witness. P.W. 4 Dr. Digambar Joshi had examined P.W. 1 Narayan and P.W. 2 Gopal and found injuries, as detailed by him, on the persons of P.W. 1 Narayan and P.W. 2 Gopal. He issued medical certificates at Exh-49 and Exh-50. P.W. 5 Head Constable Gopinath Kamble is the Investigating Officer. 7. Both the Courts below believed the prosecution version as detailed supra and therefore, while the present revision petitioners were convicted, the rest of the accused, to whom no assault is attributed, were acquitted. 8. Mr. A.G. Godhamgaonkar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, strenuously submitted before me that the deposition of P.W. 3 Devidas, the alleged eye witness would show that he was making a false statement. While the statement of this witness would show that he made material improvement regarding the actual assault than his earlier statement recorded by the Investigating Officer P.W. 5 Gopinath Kamble, due to deep animosity between the parties, the material would reveal that in fact, the incident of accident due to the scooter has been given colour of the assault by the present petitioners. 9. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. Mr. 9. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. Mr. D.B. Bhange submitted that the statement of the injured eye witnesses, coupled with the statement of the independent eye witness i.e. P.W. 3 Devidas, as supported by the medical evidence, would show that both the courts below have rightly convicted the present revision petitioners. In the circumstances, in the present criminal revision application, there is no scope for interference in the reasoning recorded by the Courts below. 10. On the basis of above material, the following point arises for my determination in the present revision application:- "Whether the prosecution has proved that the present revision petitioners being members of unlawful assembly in prosecution of common object, at given time, date and place, have caused riot and some of the members in prosecution of the common object, have caused grievous injury to P.W. 1 Narayan and injuries to P.W. 2 Gopal?" My finding to the above point is in the affirmative as regards the offence of riot and in the negative as regards the offences punishable under section 324 and 326 read with section 149 of the I.P. Code, for the reasons to follow. REASONS 11. The evidence on record would show that while the incident has occurred at about 10 p.m. in the night on the road, the F.I.R. came to be filed at 4 a.m. in the next morning as is clear from the said F.I.R. P.W. 4 Dr. Digambar Joshi - the Medical Officer, on the strength of the injury certificates at Exh-49 and Exh-50, noted the following injuries on the person of P.W. 1 Narayan and P.W. 2 Gopal. The injuries found by the Medical Officer on person of P.W. 2 Gopal were as follows:- (i) Contusion size 2" x 1" on medial of left knee (ii) Contusion size 1" x 1" on right self (iii) The superficial cuts size 1/4" - long over medial and ring finger of right hand, superficial in nature and fresh in bleeding and directed obliquely. According to P.W. 4 Dr. Joshi, the above injuries were simple and were caused within 24 hours. The injuries No. 1 and 2 were caused by hard and blunt object while the injury No. 3 was caused by sharp and hard object. P.W. 4 Dr. According to P.W. 4 Dr. Joshi, the above injuries were simple and were caused within 24 hours. The injuries No. 1 and 2 were caused by hard and blunt object while the injury No. 3 was caused by sharp and hard object. P.W. 4 Dr. Joshi found the following injuries on the person of complainant P.W. 1 Narayan:- (i) Incise wound size 1" x 1/4" x 1/3" over palm of right hand, fresh and bleeding. (ii) Incise wound size 1" x 1 1/4" x 1/4" over anterior aspect of left elbow. (iii) Contusion with tenderness size 2" x 1" over posterior lateral aspect of left forearm and with fracture of left ulna. (iv) contusion size 4" x 2" over right scapula (v) Two contusions size 4" x 1 1/2" parallel over lateral aspect of left arm, oblique in directions. According to P.W. 4 Dr. Joshi, injuries Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and 5 were simple and the injury No. 3 was grievous in nature. Those were caused within 24 hours. The injuries No. 1 and 2 were caused by sharp and hard object and the injury Nos. 3 and 5 were caused by blunt and hard object. 12. P.W. 3 Devidas though had made certain improvement as to at what point of time, he reached the spot of occurrence i.e. when after hearing shout while he was talking with some other person or otherwise. Further he gave the graphic details regarding assault made by each of the revision petitioner, as detailed in the F.I.R. This detailed picture, however, is missing in his statement recorded by the Investigating Officer. 13. Mr. Godhamgaonkar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that deep animosity between the parties is an admitted fact. Though P.W. 5 - Investigating Officer has stated that he recorded statements of the persons living near the spot of occurrence where there is hotel, shops, pan stalls, etc., he did not record the statements of the persons i.e. owners of hotel, shops, pan stalls. Of all the four eye witnesses mentioned in the F.I.R., the prosecution has examined P.W. 3 Devidas who was also interested in the cause, as his cross-examination would reveal that earlier, his father was the cashier prior to the complainant and there was problem regarding funds. Of all the four eye witnesses mentioned in the F.I.R., the prosecution has examined P.W. 3 Devidas who was also interested in the cause, as his cross-examination would reveal that earlier, his father was the cashier prior to the complainant and there was problem regarding funds. It would show that he was not only a community member but was more interested as his father was former cashier of the trust. Mr. Godhamgaonkar further submitted that while in cross-examination, P.W. 3 Devidas has admitted that the distance of his house is one furlong from the places nearby the spot of incident, according to his version, he came out of the house only to go for passing urine and therefore, there was no reason for going one furlong away. Mr. Godhamgaonkar further submitted that there is no record to corroborate the oral version of P.W. 1 Narayan and P.W. 2 Gopal that though they had first gone to the Police Station, they were referred to the hospital and thereafter the F.I.R. came to be belatedly recorded. He further points towards the admission of P.W. 1 Narayan made immediately after the assault that he himself was driving the scooter and had taken it to the Police Station which is an impossible feat on the face of the injuries, as detailed supra. In the circumstances, he submitted that the learned Courts below did not appreciate the evidence on record properly and did not extend the benefit of doubt to the petitioners, which is clearly arising in the present case. 14. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. submitted that though P.W. 3 Devidas has made certain statements, those are in the nature of improvement, in the teeth of injuries and more particularly the specific statement of Medical Officer that the injuries on the person of P.W. 1 Narayam - complainant are not possible by fall from the scooter as some of the injuries are on both sides of the body, the prosecution case can not be disbelieved. In the circumstances, learned A.P.P. submitted that the revision application be dismissed. 15. Upon going through the entire evidence on record, what is evident is that in the night of 15th March, 1992 at about 11.40 p.m., injuries as detailed supra were found on the body of the injured persons by the Medical Officer - P.W. 4 Dr. Joshi. In the circumstances, learned A.P.P. submitted that the revision application be dismissed. 15. Upon going through the entire evidence on record, what is evident is that in the night of 15th March, 1992 at about 11.40 p.m., injuries as detailed supra were found on the body of the injured persons by the Medical Officer - P.W. 4 Dr. Joshi. He specifically denied that the injuries on the person of P.W. 1 Narayan - the complainant are possible by an accident of a scooter. He was specific that injuries No. 1 and 2 on the person of P.W. 1 Narayan are not possible by one fall because they are on the opposite parts of legs. He denied that the injuries No. 1 and 2 were caused due to fall. 16. The interest of all the witnesses i.e. P.W. 1 Narayan, P.W. 2 Gopal and P.W. 3 Devidas in the cause is itself the prosecution case i.e. motive. However, when the statements of the injured eye witnesses are supported by the medical evidence regarding the cause of accident, in my view, in the present criminal revision, there is no scope for interference in the same since prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the incident has occurred. To that extent, there is no need to interfere in the reasoning of the Courts below. 17. As regards the conviction, however, it is to be noted that neither in the F.I.R. nor in the examination-in-chief of the witnesses, there is anything to show that all the present revision petitioners had already met at the place laced with the arms. The F.I.R. itself would show that the relevant petitioners/accused, during the incident, went to the nearby firewood depot of Razaq Pahelwan and therefrom, they lifted certain firewood and assaulted with the same, as detailed supra. Further, it should be noted that according to P.W. 4 Dr. Joshi, only injury No. 3 on the person of P.W. 1 Narayan i.e. fracture of left hand ulna was grievous in nature. The other injuries were simple in nature. Further, according to him, injuries No. 1 and 2 could be caused by sharp and hard object. In that view of the matter, the accused No. 2/present petitioner No. 2 Radhaswami, who is the author of injury No. 2, can be convicted for the offence punishable under section 326 of the I.P. Code. The other injuries were simple in nature. Further, according to him, injuries No. 1 and 2 could be caused by sharp and hard object. In that view of the matter, the accused No. 2/present petitioner No. 2 Radhaswami, who is the author of injury No. 2, can be convicted for the offence punishable under section 326 of the I.P. Code. As regards rest of the revision petitioners, the offence that could be made out is the one under section 324 of the I.P. Code read with section 149 of the I.P. Code as each of them has used the knife or sticks for causing the injuries as detailed by P.W. 3 Devidas. 18. As regards the sentence, Mr. Godhamgaonkar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, submitted that the evidence on record would clearly show that P.W. 1 Narayan was not ready to give the account of the funds collected for the temple. Over the said dispute, even according to the F.I.R. at Exh-45, two complaints earlier were filed with the police. In that view of the matter, he submitted that the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment recorded by the learned courts below for the offence punishable under section 326 read with section 149 of the I.P. Code is disproportionate. Admittedly, there is no criminal history of the revision petitioners. 19. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. submitted that in view of the injuries found on the persons of P.W. 1 Narayan and P.W. 2 Gopal, there is no need to interfere as regards the sentences are concerned. Having considered the rival submissions, in my view, the sentence recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate needs interference in view of the submissions of Mr. A.G. Godhamgaonkar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, borne out from the record itself. Hence, the following order:- [I] The Criminal Revision Application is partly allowed; [II] The conviction of the present petitioners for the offences punishable under section 147 and 148 of the I.P. Code is hereby maintained. [III] The conviction of all the present petitioners for the offence punishable under section 326 and section 324 read with section 149 of the I.P. Code, is however, set aside. Instead, the accused No. 2 i.e. present petitioner No. 2 - Radhaswami s/o. Denaya Bartipuram is solely convicted for the offence punishable under section 326 of the I.P. Code. [III] The conviction of all the present petitioners for the offence punishable under section 326 and section 324 read with section 149 of the I.P. Code, is however, set aside. Instead, the accused No. 2 i.e. present petitioner No. 2 - Radhaswami s/o. Denaya Bartipuram is solely convicted for the offence punishable under section 326 of the I.P. Code. Rest of the petitioners are acquitted of the offence punishable under section 326 of the I.P. Code. They are, however, convicted for the offence punishable under section 324 read with section 149 of the I.P. Code only. [IV] The order of the sentence imposed on the original accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 6 and 8 to 10, for the offence punishable under section 147 of the I.P. Code i.e. to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months and to pay fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days for the offence punishable under section 147of the I.P. Code, is hereby maintained. [V] The order of sentence imposed on the original accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 6 and 8 to 10, for the offence punishable under section 148 of the I.P. Code i.e. to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs. 100/- each, is hereby maintained. [VI] The original accused Nos. 1, 4 to 6 and 8 to 10 are hereby sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months, for the offence punishable under section 324 read with section 149 of the I.P. Code. [VII] The original accused No. 2 i.e. present petitioner No. 2 - Radhaswami s/o. Denaya Bartipuram, who is now by this order convicted for the offence punishable under section 326 of the I.P. code, is hereby directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year. [VIII] All the sentences to run concurrently. [IX] The bail bonds, if any stand cancelled. [X] The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded to take steps for securing the presence of the concerned accused to serve the sentences. [XI] The Criminal Revision Application is accordingly disposed of.