Judgment 1. This revision arises against two concurrent judgments of the Courts below convicting the petitioner of offence u/s.326 IPC and sentencing him to undergo 6 months S.I. and fine of Rs.1,000/- i/d 2 weeks S.I. 2. The prosecution case was that at about 06.00 p.m. on 27.12.2002, due to property dispute, the accused assaulted PW-3 using deadly weapons and threatened to do away with him. Upon the complaint of PW-1, a case was registered in Crime No.572 of 2002 on the file of the respondent for offences u/s.326 and 506(ii) IPC. On completion of investigation, a final report has been filed. The allegation against this petitioner/A1 is that he assaulted PW-3 with an iron rod as threatened him. The case was tried in C.C.No.388 of 2003 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate VI, Coimbatore. 3. Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses, marked ten exhibits and one material object. None were examined on behalf of the defence nor were any exhibits marked. 4. On appreciation of evidence before it, the trial Court found that PW-3 was examined on 26.07.2004 and there was no explanation on the side of the defence as to why he was not cross-examined on such date. However, on 27.12.2007, the accused have filed a petition seeking reexamination of PWs.1 and 2 since PW-3 had died. The trial Court found that from a perusal of the petition filed by the accused on 27.12.2007 and the death certificate of PW-3, it was clear that the accused has knowledge of the death of PW-3. However, despite the same, the accused had filed a petition on 26.06.2008 seeking cross-examination of PW-3. The trial Court found that though sufficient opportunities have been given, the accused had failed to cross-examine PW-3 and hence, the contention that the accused had lost the opportunity of cross-examining PW-3, was rejected. On appreciation of evidence of PWs.1 to 3, the trial Court found that the prosecution has clearly established its case that the accused had attacked PW-3 with iron rod and caused grievous injuries. On appreciation of evidence of PWs.1 to 3, the trial Court found that the prosecution has clearly established its case that the accused had attacked PW-3 with iron rod and caused grievous injuries. The trial Court has negated the contention of the accused that while PW-1, in chief-examination, has deposed that the accused attacked PW-3 using an iron rod, she, in cross-examination has deposed that the accused attacked PW-3 using a crowbar and hence, her evidence could not be reliable, on the reasoning that PW-1, both in the complaint as well as in chief-examination, has stated that the accused had attacked her husband using an iron rod. On the above finding, the trial Court found that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. However, while convicting the petitioner for offence u/s.326 IPC, the trial Court acquitted him of offence u/s.506(ii) IPC. The appeal preferred by the petitioner in C.A.No.40 of 2009 on the file of learned I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, came to be dismissed under judgment dated 25.08.2009. Hence, this revision. 5. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Advocate (Crl.side). 6. The finding arrived at by the Courts below in convicting the accused are well-justified. However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court, while confirming the conviction passed by the Courts below, would reduce the sentence to the period already undergone. However, the fine imposed on the petitioner is enhanced to Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) and the same shall be paid within a period of two months of the receipt of this order. The fine amount shall be paid over as compensation to PW-1. This Criminal Revision is disposed of with the above modification.