ORDER : 1. This revision petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5 being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 11.01.2010 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC–I, Srirangapatna (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’), in CC No.57/2009 which was upheld by the FTC, Srirangapatna (hereinafter referred to as the ‘First Appellate Court’), in Crl.A.No.12/2010, vide order dated 20.07.2011. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri R.D. Renukaradhya, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondentPolice. 3. The status of the parties before the Trial Court is retained for the sake of convenience. 4. The K.R.S Police filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Sections 143, 448, 325 and 504 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) on the complaint filed by PW.1Shobha. As per her complaint, on 02.01.2009 at 7.00 a.m. when she was in her house, the accused being the neighbours, trespassed into her house, picked up a quarrel, abused her in filthy language, slapped her and kicked on her stomach, thereby caused grievous injuries to her and then they dragged her out side the house and assaulted her. When she was admitted in the hospital, the Police came and obtained a complaint and registered the case. Thereafter, they filed the charge sheet. After appearance of the accused before the Court, they were released on bail and charges were framed. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, in all examined 9 witnesses and got marked 5 documents. Later, statements under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded. The incriminating evidence against the accused were read over and explained to the accused. The case of the accused is one of total denial, but not entered into any defence. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, in all examined 9 witnesses and got marked 5 documents. Later, statements under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded. The incriminating evidence against the accused were read over and explained to the accused. The case of the accused is one of total denial, but not entered into any defence. After hearing the arguments, the Trial Court found the accused guilty, convicted and sentenced the accused to pay fine, as follows: “For the offence under Section 143 of IPC – Rs.250/each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days; For the offence under Section 448 of IPC – Rs.750/each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month; For the offence under Section 323 of IPC – Rs.1000/each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months; For the offence under Section 504 of IPC – Rs.500/each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. In all, a total amount Rs.12,500/each was imposed as fine. Out of which, Rs.10,000/was ordered to be paid to the complaint as compensation. Assailing the same, the accused approached the First Appellate Court by filing an appeal, which also came to be dismissed. Hence, the accused are before this Court by way of this revision petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused contended that the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court is not sustainable. Even on perusal of the evidence, except the interested witnesses, no other witnesses were examined and supported the case. There are lot of contradictions in the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Therefore, the judgment of the Trial Court requires to be set aside. Alternatively, learned counsel submitted that the fine amount imposed by the Trial Court is also more, which requires reduction in case this Court comes to the conclusion that the conviction cannot be set aside. Hence, prayed for allowing the petition. 6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader supported the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and also contended that the Trial Court imposed only the sentence of fine, but not imprisonment. Only Rs.250/Rs.750/, Rs.1,000/and Rs.500/have been imposed as fine amount even though the provisions of IPC provides for imposing of sentence of imprisonment. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. 7. Only Rs.250/Rs.750/, Rs.1,000/and Rs.500/have been imposed as fine amount even though the provisions of IPC provides for imposing of sentence of imprisonment. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. 7. Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the records, the point that arises for consideration is as follows: “Whether the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court calls for interference?” 8. On perusal of the records, the Police registered the case against the accused persons after receiving a medicolegal information from the Aditya Hospital, Mysuru and obtaining the complaint from PW.1. Thereafter, followed the procedure and filed the charge sheet. Admittedly, the accused as well as the complainant are neighbours. The incident took place on the background that the complainant’s brotherNagaraju said to have committed suicide on 24.11.2008 and the complainant said to have blamed the accused persons that they are the cause for the death of her brother. The accused persons stated to have trespassed into the house of the complainant, picked up quarrel, assaulted her after abusing her in filthy language dragged her out of the house and also kicked on her stomach. Ex.P.1 is the complainant. PW.1complainant has supported the case of the prosecution. Ex.P.1 the complaint corroborates her evidence. PWs.2 to 4 are the eyewitnesses. They also supported the prosecution case. PWs.5 and 6, who are the panch witnesses also supported the case of the prosecution. PW.8 is the doctor, who treated PW.1 and also given evidence and issued Ex.P.4wound certificate, which reveals that the victim PW.1 sustained injuries on her stomach when she was admitted to the hospital. Then the intimation was given to the Police and accordingly, the Police took action against the accused persons. On perusal of the evidence on record, there is no chance for the complainant to falsely implicate the accused persons due to previous enmity or vengeance. If at all there was a preplan to falsely implicate the accused, the complainant could have straight away gone to the Police and lodged the complaint. Here in this case, after the incident, she was admitted in the hospital and after coming to know that it is a medicolegal case, the hospital authorities intimated the Police. Later, the police came and obtained the complaint when the complainant was in the hospital. Here in this case, after the incident, she was admitted in the hospital and after coming to know that it is a medicolegal case, the hospital authorities intimated the Police. Later, the police came and obtained the complaint when the complainant was in the hospital. The Trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record rightly found the accused guilty for the alleged offences under Section 143 of IPC for the common object to commit offence; Section 448 for trespassing into the house of the complainant; Section 323 for assaulting in hands and causing injuries and Section 504 for abusing in filthy language read with Section 149 of IPC. After reappreciating the evidence, the First Appellate Court upheld the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. I do not find any error or illegality committing by the Courts below in convicting the accused for the offence under Sections 143, 448, 323 read with Section 149 of IPC. However, learned counsel argued alternatively that the fine amount imposed is more. The provisions of Section 143 of IPC does not say any minimum amount of fine. However, Section 448 of IPC says that the maximum fine amount of Rs.1,000/with imprisonment and Section 323 also says Rs.1,000/is maximum. There is no fine amount prescribed for the offence under Section 504 of IPC. Considering all these aspects, I feel that if some amount of fine is reduced, for the offence under Section 323 of IPC from Rs.1,000/to Rs.500/that would meet the ends of justice. Hence, the following order: Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. The judgment of conviction passed by both the Court is hereby confirmed. However, the sentence of fine imposed by the Trial court for the offence under Sections 143, 448, 504 to the extent Rs.250, Rs.750/and Rs.500/is confirmed. However, for the offence under Section 323 of IPC, the fine amount Rs.1,000/is reduced to Rs.500/for each accused. In all, the accused have to pay Rs.10,000/, within four weeks, failing which they shall undergo simple imprisonment as ordered by the Trial Court. Out of the fine amount collected, Rs.9,000/is payable to the victim P.W.1, Shoba, as compensation. Office to send back the Trial Court records.