JUDGMENT Bharat Bhushan, J. – Heard Sri Shashwat Shukla, learned counsel for revisionists, Jaipal and Veer Singh and learned A.G.A. on behalf of State. The revisionist no. 3 had died, therefore, his revision is abated. The revision filed by revisionists Jaipal and Veer Singh survives. 2. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment and appellate order dated 24.9.1990 partly dismissing the Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 1990 (Jai Pal Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others) against the judgment and order dated 6.3.1990 passed by Assistant Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat in Sessions Trial No. 103 of 1988 (State v. Jaipal Singh and others) under Sections 308, 323, 504 & 506 I.P.C., P.S. Ghatampur, District Kanpur Dehat whereby all three revisionists were convicted under Section 307 I.P.C. read with Section 34 and 323 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of four years in Section 307 I.P.C., read with Section 34 I.P.C. along with fine of Rs. 200 each with default stipulation. And further period of one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 323 I.P.C. along with fine of Rs. 200/- with default stipulation. 3. It appears that on 14th August, 1987 at about 4 pm. in the village Varauli, P.S. Ghatampur, District Kanpur Dehat revisionists, Jaipal, Veer Singh and late Ram Kumar caused lathi blows upon one Vishwanath resulting in several injuries to his person. Initially non cognisable report was lodged on 14.8.1987 under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. later on it was converted into an offence under Section 307 I.P.C. The matter was investigated and thereafter a charge sheet in Crime No. 333 under Sections 308, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. was submitted. The case was committed to the court of Sessions. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, framed charges against the accused persons under Sections 307, 308 read with Section 34 I.P.C, 504, 506 and 323 I.P.C. The revisionistsccused persons denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 4. During course of trial the testimonies of P.W. 1 Amresh, P.W. 2 Tej Bahadur, P.W. 3 Vishwanath, P.W.4 Jai Karan, P.W. 5 Bhura, P.W. 6 Dr. S.K. Gupta, P.W. 7 Head Constable Rameshwar Dayal Pathak, P.W. 8 Dr. P.C. Chandel and P.W. 9 S.I. Lal Ji Verma were recorded. The statement of accused revisionists were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All allegations were denied by the accused persons. P.W. 8 Dr. P.C. Chandel examined the injured Vishwanath. S.K. Gupta, P.W. 7 Head Constable Rameshwar Dayal Pathak, P.W. 8 Dr. P.C. Chandel and P.W. 9 S.I. Lal Ji Verma were recorded. The statement of accused revisionists were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All allegations were denied by the accused persons. P.W. 8 Dr. P.C. Chandel examined the injured Vishwanath. Following injuries were found on the person of witness during medical examination held on 14.8.1987: "1. Contusion 2 cm.x 1 cm. 1t. Side of lare head just above the medical and of Ltd. Eye bow, colour read. There is swelling in the area. 2. contusion (Double lined) 5 cm. x 1.5 cm on outer aspect of Rt. Arm 6 m. bellow the Rt. Shoulder Joint colour red peaced. 3. Double lined contusion 7 cm. x 2 cm. On obater aspect of Rt. Arm plead oblige 3 cm below injury no. 2 colour red. 4. Contused swelling 9 cm. x 2 cm. On back of Rt. More Arm 7 cm. Below Rt. Alow joint. Bony tenderness present Advise N. Rly Rt. Fore Arm Apt lat colour red. 5. Contusion (double lined) 8 cm. X 2 cm. On Rt. Side of back lower part fore arm severely placed, 18 cm. Below the inferior angle of scapula, colour Red. 6. Contused swelling in an area of 10 cm. X 6 cm. On front of Rt. Side of chest 7 cm. Below the starnal notice. Colour Red. Heavwplysist bony tenderness present. Advice X-Ray of Chest. 7. Multiple double lined constamtion in an area of 21 cm. x 16 cm involving whole RT. Hip on Rt. Dip colour Red. There is swelling in the contused area skin of hip hot. 8. Double lined contusion, 7 cm. x 2 cm. on back of Rt. thigh vertically placed 12 cm. above knee. Colour Red. 9. contused swelling 10 cm.x 4 cm. On back of Rt. Leg 12 cm. Below knee joint colour Red. 10. Double lines contusion 6 cm. X 2 cm. On outer aspect of Lt. Arm 6 cm. Below shoulder placed transveribly chique. Colour red. 11. Double lined contusion 6 cm. X 2 on Lt. Side of back 7 cm. Above line chest colour red. 12. Double lined contusion 8 cm. X 2 cm. On outer aspect of it. Thigh 13 cm. Above knee joint, colour red. 13. Abrasion 1 cm. X 1 cm. on joint of Lt. Leg 6 cm. below knee joint. 11. Double lined contusion 6 cm. X 2 on Lt. Side of back 7 cm. Above line chest colour red. 12. Double lined contusion 8 cm. X 2 cm. On outer aspect of it. Thigh 13 cm. Above knee joint, colour red. 13. Abrasion 1 cm. X 1 cm. on joint of Lt. Leg 6 cm. below knee joint. 14. Abraded contusion swelling in an area of 8 cm. on front of Lt. Leg 14 cm. above it. A knee joint colour red." 5. Considering all materials on record, learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat convicted the revisionists under Section 307 I.P.C. read with Section 34 and 323 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of four years under Section 307 I.P.C., read with Section 34 I.P.C. along with fine of Rs. 200 each with default stipulation. And they were further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of one year and a fine of Rs. 200/- each with default stipulation for offence under Section 323 I.P.C. vide order dated 6.3.1990. This order was challenged by filing Criminal Appeal No.7 of 1990 (Jaipal Singh and others v. State of U.P.) which was heard and decided by the first Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat vide order dated 24.9.2015. The appellate court convicted the accused revisionists under Section 323 I.P.C. holding that punishment under Section 307 I.P.C. was not sustainable. Appeal was allowed acquitting all revisionists under Section 307 I.P.C. However, the court convicted revisionists under Section 323 I.P.C. and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment of six months. Imposition of fine Rs. 200/- under Section 323 I.P.C. was also set aside. This judgment is under challenge before this court in criminal revision. 6. This revision was only admitted on the point of sentence. The order dated 17.10.2009 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court is hereunder: - "Admit on the question of sentence only issue notice. Let the applicants Jaipal, Veer Singh and Ram Kumar be released on bail on their furnishing adequate security to the satisfaction of C.J.M. Kanpur Dehat. The applicants are granted one month's time to deposit the fine." 7. It is settled position of law that High Court will exercise its revisional power where there is a material error or defect in law or procedure, misconception or misreading of evidence, failure to exercise or wrong exercise of jurisdiction or where the facts admitted or proved do not disclose any offence. 8. It is settled position of law that High Court will exercise its revisional power where there is a material error or defect in law or procedure, misconception or misreading of evidence, failure to exercise or wrong exercise of jurisdiction or where the facts admitted or proved do not disclose any offence. 8. As a broad proposition, the interference may be justified (a) where the decision is grossly erroneous; (b) where there is no compliance with the provisions of law; (c) where the finding of fact affecting the decision is not based on the evidence; (d) where the material evidence of the parties has not been considered; and (e) where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. 9. In exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, it will be beyond its power and jurisdiction to re-assess the evidence. Appraisal of the evidence is not permissible in revision petition. 10. Coming back to the facts of the case, it is evident that initially report was lodged under Section 323 I.P.C. which was later on converted under Section 308 I.P.C, and charge sheet was also submitted under the same sections. However, the trial court convicted the revisionists under Section 307 I.P.C. read with Section 34 and 323 I.P.C. This course of action was not found favour with the appellate court. The appellate Court held that injuries sustained by Vishwanath are minor and that; accused persons were fully responsible for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. only. Therefore, the revisionists were acquitted under Section 307 I.P.C. but their conviction under Section 323 I.P.C. were upheld. However sentence was reduced. 11. Learned counsel for revisionists submits that incident occurred way back in 1987 and 28 years have elapsed and that; they were convicted merely under Section 323 Cr.P.C. There is no criminal history against the revisionists. They are simple farmers who perhaps lost their cool on the particular day. 12. Considering all facts and circumstances of the case it would be appropriate that remaining period of sentence of revisionists is converted into additional amount of fine. This criminal revision is partly allowed. The conviction of revisionists Jaipal and Veer Singh under Section 323 I.P.C. is maintained. However the sentence imposed by appellate court vide judgment and order dated 24.9.1990 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 1990 (Jai Pal Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others) is modified. This criminal revision is partly allowed. The conviction of revisionists Jaipal and Veer Singh under Section 323 I.P.C. is maintained. However the sentence imposed by appellate court vide judgment and order dated 24.9.1990 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 1990 (Jai Pal Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others) is modified. It is provided that revisionists Jaipal and Veer Singh are sentenced to the period already undergone in jail along with fine of Rs. 20,000/- each (Rs. Twenty thousand only) failing which they will have to undergo imprisonment of 6 months each. Out of the fine amount of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand only), Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen thousand only) each shall be paid to the injured within one month of deposit. Ordered Accordingly.