JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. This criminal revision petition, under Sections 397/399 of the Cr.PC, is filed against the judgment and order, dated 30.05.2005, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhubri, in C.A. No. 10(1)/2005, affirming the impugned judgment and order, dated 14.03.2005, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 2nd Class, Dhubri, in GR Case No. 276/1998, under Sections 447/294/325 of the IPC. 2. None appears for the revision petitioner on repeated calls. I have heard Mr. NJ Dutta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State of Assam/respondent. 3. I have also perused the judgments of the learned Trial Court as well as the appellate Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Dhubri and also the Trial Court record, including the evidence, and accordingly, I propose to dispose of the case on merit. 4. The prosecution case is that, the informant, Smti. Mina Devi lodged an FIR with the Dhubri Police Station, on 06.12.1998, stating that the accused/revision petitioner, Ram Chandra Mallah while passing through her house shouted with foul language in the night of 04.12.1998 and when the husband of the informant, namely, Ram Surat Choudhury, went out of his house and asked the accused/revision petitioner to stop shouting, the accused/revision petitioner attacked Ram Surat Choudhury/the victim with a bamboo and caused grievous injuries on his right shoulder. 5. On receipt of the FIR, the Dhubri Police Station registered a case, being Dhubri Police Station Case No. 276/1998, under Sections 447/392/325/34 of the IPC. The police investigated into the case, collected evidence, and finally, submitted Charge-Sheet against the accused/revision petitioner under Sections 447/294/325 of the IPC. 6. After exhausting the required legal formalities, the learned Court proceeded with the trial. It deserved to be mentioned herein that the accused/revision petitioner pleaded innocence to the charges framed against him under Sections 447/294/325 of the IPC. 7. To substantiate the charges against the accused/revision petitioner, the prosecution examined as many as 8 (eight) witnesses and the defence examined none. The defence plea is of denial. 8. The evidence of PW1, Mina Devi, shows that she was not present at the place of occurrence and also admitted that the accused/revision petitioner shouted from inside his house only, meaning thereby that the statement in the FIR to the effect that the accused/revision petitioner was shouting in front of the house of the informant is belied. 8. The evidence of PW1, Mina Devi, shows that she was not present at the place of occurrence and also admitted that the accused/revision petitioner shouted from inside his house only, meaning thereby that the statement in the FIR to the effect that the accused/revision petitioner was shouting in front of the house of the informant is belied. She is not an eye-witness to the occurrence also. 9. The evidence of PW2/victim is that the accused/revision petitioner was scolding from inside his house only. He deposed that the accused/revision petitioner was scolding with filthy language. 10. The evidence of PW3, however, makes it clearly appear that she saw the accused/revision petitioner running towards the injured Ram Surat Choudury with a lathi in his hand and hit him in his right shoulder. She is also found to have asserted in her cross-examination that she saw the incident. PW3 saw the accused/revision petitioner inflicting lathi blow on the person of the injured and PW5 had seen the accused/revision petitioner with a lathi in his hand. The PW4 also witnessed the occurrence, as such an eye witness. 11. It is found from the evidence of PW5 that he went to the road and saw that the accused/revision petitioner was scolding Ram Surat Choudhury/victim. But, it appears from his cross-examination that he appeared in the place of occurrence only after the occurrence was over. 12. PW6 stated that the accused/revision petitioner was scolding the victim Ram Surat Choudhury by his name. 13. It appears from the evidence on record, as discussed above, that the PW2/injured himself has stated that the accused/revision petitioner after scolding him, had hit him on his right shoulder causing grievous injuries to his person. 14. The Doctor, who was examined as PW8, examined the PW2 after the incident and according to the him, the injury was caused by blunt weapon. The evidence of the Doctor makes it appear that the victim, Ram Surat Choudhury sustained grievous injury. 15. Now, the question is as to how the injured/Ram Surat Choudhury sustained the injury. 16. The evidence of PW2/injured himself and the evidence of PW3, PW4 and PW5 makes it clearly appear that it was none but the accused/revision petitioner who inflicted a lathi blow and caused injury on the person of the victim/PW2. 17. 15. Now, the question is as to how the injured/Ram Surat Choudhury sustained the injury. 16. The evidence of PW2/injured himself and the evidence of PW3, PW4 and PW5 makes it clearly appear that it was none but the accused/revision petitioner who inflicted a lathi blow and caused injury on the person of the victim/PW2. 17. Such being the position, appearing from the evidence on record, it appears from the judgment of the learned Trial Court that conviction of the accused/revision petitioner is based on evidence on record and the order of conviction is rightly upheld by the appellate Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Dhubri, vide judgment dated, 30.05.2005, passed in C.A. No. 10(1)/2005. Therefore, no interference is required. 18. However, so far the punishment is concerned, I have considered the age of the accused/revision petitioner. He was 60 years of age in the year 2005 on the date of recording of his statement, under Section 313 of the Cr.PC and as such, he is now around 70 years of age. 19. There is no instance in the record to suggest that he inflicted repeated blows with the lathi on the person of the injured/PW2, and rather, the evidence makes it appear that this is a case of single blow on the right shoulder of the victim/PW2. 20. The case is of the year 1998 and it was finally disposed of by the learned Trial Court on 14.03.2005 and the appellate Court of the learned Sessions Judge on 30.05.2005, and thereafter, this criminal revision petition is pending before this Court since 2005. 21. Considering the age of the accused/revision petitioner and the fact that he is fighting a prolonged legal battle, this Court is of the view that if the accused/revision petitioner if sentenced to simple imprisonment for 15 (fifteen) days and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, it will meet the ends of justice. 22. Accordingly, while upholding the order of conviction, recorded by the learned Trial Court as well as the appellate Court of the learned Sessions Judge, the sentence of the accused/revision petitioner is reduced to simple imprisonment for 15 (fifteen) days with a fine of Rs, 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment for 4 (four) days. 23. The revision petition is partly allowed accordingly. 24. Send down the LCR along with the copy of this judgment.