JUDGMENT AND ORDER : HITESH KUMAR SARMA, J. 1. This criminal revision petition has been filed, under Section 397, read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C, against the judgment and order, dated 26-12-2008, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj, in GR Case No. 834/2005, convicting and sentencing the revision petitioners to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for another 15 days, under Section 447 of the IPC, and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 months as well as the judgment and order, dated 23-11-2009, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj, in Criminal Appeal No. 5(1)/2009, modifying and reducing the sentences to simple imprisonment for 3 months and 2 months respectively under Sections 447 and 323 of the IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, under Section 323 of the IPC. 2. I have perused the petition including the annexures furnished therewith along with the impugned judgments. 3. I have heard Mr. SC Biswas, learned counsel representing the petitioners and Mr. PS Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 4. The fact of the case is that, on 27-09-2005, at about 2.00 p.m, with regard to some family matters, there was a discussion going on amongst the members of the family of the informant, Md. Liakat Ali. At that time, the accused persons trespassed into the residential compound of the informant and had altercation with Fuljan Bibi, sister of the informant and when she shouted, the other two sisters of the informant, Nekjan Bibi and Roboi Bibi went to save her, but the accused-revision petitioners assaulted Fuljan Bibi on her person and snatched her gold chain. When the informant arrived at the place of occurrence, he was also assaulted by the accused-revision petitioners. 5. On receipt of the FIR, on the above facts, the Karimganj Police Station registered a case, being Karimganj Police Station Case No. 384/2005, under Sections 447/379/323/324/34 of the IPC, investigated into it, and finally, laid charge sheet against the accused-revision petitioners, under Sections 447/323/34 of the IPC. After exhausting all required legal formalities, charge under Sections 447/323/34 of the IPC was framed to which the accused-revision petitioners pleaded not guilty. 6. Then the trial commenced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj. 7. After exhausting all required legal formalities, charge under Sections 447/323/34 of the IPC was framed to which the accused-revision petitioners pleaded not guilty. 6. Then the trial commenced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj. 7. The prosecution examined as many as 5 (five) witnesses and the defence examined 1 (one). After closure of the prosecution evidence, statements of the accused-revision petitioners were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C and in their such statements, they are heard denying accusations made against them. 8. I have scanned the evidence led by both the parties as available on record of the learned trial Court. The informant is examined as PW1, who himself is also an injured in the occurrence alleged in the instant case. His evidence is to the effect that while he was holding discussions with his family members, the accused-revision petitioners trespassed into his house, had some altercation followed by assault on the person of Fuljan Bibi and thereafter when other two sisters, Nekjan and Robjan Begum appeared in the scene of occurrence, they were also assaulted by the accused-revision petitioners. The evidence of PW1 makes it appear that the place of occurrence is the campus of their residence, meaning thereby, that the accused came to their place, which constituted the offence of trespass as defined in Section 441 of the IPC. Such evidence of PW2, who is the brother of the informant/PW1, and a natural witness to the occurrence as the occurrence took place in their residential campus itself. 9. PW2, Mustt. Robjan Begum, is the witness to the occurrence. She has seen the accused-revision petitioners assaulting the injured. Fuljan Bibi as well as the informant (PW1). 10. PW3, Fuljan Bibi is the injured, who is the first victim of assault of the accused-revision petitioners. The informant and his other sisters sustained injuries only when they resisted the accused-revision petitioners from assaulting PW3. 11. I have thoroughly gone through the evidence of these three witnesses and their cross-examination. The defence tried to discredit their evidence suggesting that there is previous enmity between them; therefore, the prosecution has staged a make-belief story to pay off their old score. 12. PW4 is the doctor who examined the injured and found that the injuries were simple and opined to have been caused by blunt weapon, thereby bringing the offence of assault causing hurt to PW3 under Section 323 of the IPC. 12. PW4 is the doctor who examined the injured and found that the injuries were simple and opined to have been caused by blunt weapon, thereby bringing the offence of assault causing hurt to PW3 under Section 323 of the IPC. 13. The evidence of PW5 is of routine nature, being the Investigating Police Officer, from receipt of the FIR till completion of investigation and laying of the charge-sheet. 14. The learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court respectively convicted and upheld the conviction of the accused-revision petitioners under Sections 447 and 323 of the IPC. 15. As discussed above, the evidence on record, particularly, the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4 have established the guilt of the accused-revision petitioners under the aforesaid two provisions of the Penal Code and holding them guilty by the learned trial Court as well as by learned appellate Court appears to have been based on the evidence on record requiring no interference. So far as the sentence is concerned, the learned appellate Court modified the sentence reducing the same to simple imprisonment for 3 months under Section 323 of the IPC with fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default clause and also reducing the sentence to simple imprisonment for 3 months without fine, under Section 447 of the IPC. 16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the fact that the accused-revision petitioners have been fighting a prolonged legal battle since 2005, in the considered view of this Court, instead of substantive sentence, if the sentence in the form of fine is imposed that will meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the sentence of fine, imposed upon by the learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court of Rs. 1000/- under Section 323 of the IPC and Rs. 500/-, under Section 447 of the IPC is retained. Accordingly, the accused-revision petitioners are sentenced to fine only as aforesaid and in default of payment of fine, they will undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days on each count. The substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed upon both the accused-revision petitioners is set aside. 17. The accused-revision petitioners are directed to surrender before the learned trial Court to serve out the sentence. 18. This criminal revision petition is disposed of accordingly. 19. Send down the LCR along with a copy of this order.