ORDER : A. BADHARUDEEN, J. This Revision Petition has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C’ for short) challenging judgment in Crl.Appeal No.51/2021 on the files of the Sessions Court, Kollam, arising out of the judgment in S.C.No.1143/2016 on the files of the Principal Assistant Sessions Court, Kollam. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the verdicts under challenge. 3. Prosecution allegation is that at about 8.30 a.m on 30.05.2014, the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder, assaulted the defacto complainant. The specific allegation is that the 2nd accused wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant, then the 1st accused attacked her with an iron pipe aiming at her head and accordingly, the defacto complainant sustained wound on the left side of her head. Again, the 1st accused hit the defacto complainant by using an iron pipe and thereby she sustained fracture on her left hand ring finger. Again she was beaten on her right shoulder, left ribs and legs by the 1st accused, while attempting to cause her death, though she survived. On the basis of these allegations, crime was registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 326 and 308 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC’ for short). 4. On completion of investigation, final report also was filed before the learned Magistrate and it was committed to the Sessions Judge, Kollam, and made over to the Principal Assistant Sessions Court, Kollam, where the matter was tried. 5. During trial, PWs 1 to 9 were examined and Exts.P1 to P9 were marked on the side of the prosecution. M.O.Nos.1 to 3 also were marked. On the defence side, DW1 was examined. On an anxious consideration of the evidence tendered, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found that the 1st accused committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 326 and 308 r/w 34 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Since the 2nd accused died before trial, the case against the 2nd accused recorded as abated. Accordingly, the 1st accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for offence u/s.341 r/w 34 IPC. Since the 2nd accused died before trial, the case against the 2nd accused recorded as abated. Accordingly, the 1st accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for offence u/s.341 r/w 34 IPC. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months for offence u/s.324 r/w 34 IPC. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months for offence u/s. 326 r/w 34 IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months for offence u/s. 308 r/w 34 IPC. Substantive sentence ordered to run concurrently. Fine if released was ordered to be given in full to PW1. 6. The 1st accused assailed the finding of the trial court before the Sessions Court, Kollam and the learned Principal Sessions Judge considered the appeal and re-appreciated the evidence meticulously. Finally allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 308 of IPC, while confirming conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 326 of IPC. But the appellate court modified the sentence as under: “The appellant is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. If there is any default in payment of fine, the appellant shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for a further period of two months. The appellant is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.75,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. If there is any default in payment of fine, the appellant shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for a further period of three months.” 7. The appellant is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.75,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. If there is any default in payment of fine, the appellant shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for a further period of three months.” 7. While assailing the conviction imposed by the trial court for the offences under Sections 324 and 326 and confirmed by the Sessions Court, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that even though the occurrence was in a public place, only interested witnesses cited by the prosecution to prove the offences. It is further submitted that even though PW1 admitted presence of independent witnesses, the prosecution failed either to cite or examine independent witnesses, though the admitted case of PW1 is that she was in inimical terms with the accused. Therefore, the prosecution case is in the midst of doubts. The other contention is that even without framing charge under Sections 341 & 326 of IPC, the trial court convicted and sentenced the accused. It is argued further that recovery of MO3 iron pipe did not inspire confidence as per the statement of PW1. It was also argued that evidence of PW2 and PW3, who are relatives of PW1, could not even be relied on as they are interested witnesses. The evidence of PW1 regarding size of iron rod used to hit her, as one having 3 metre length, is incorrect and, therefore, there is doubt as to use of MO3 iron rod by the accused. Further MO3 was not sent for chemical examination and the same would discredit the prosecution version as held by the Apex Court in the decision reported in [ (2022) 1 SCC 341 ], Viram v. State of Madhya Pradesh. 8. Here the contention raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the accused was sentenced without framing charge for the offences under Sections 341 and 326 of IPC. But the said allegation is, prima facie, unsustainable since as discernible from paragraph 4 of the trial court judgment, charge was framed against the accused for the offences under Sections 341, 324, 326 and 308 r/w 34 of IPC. Therefore this contention is baseless and is repelled. But the said allegation is, prima facie, unsustainable since as discernible from paragraph 4 of the trial court judgment, charge was framed against the accused for the offences under Sections 341, 324, 326 and 308 r/w 34 of IPC. Therefore this contention is baseless and is repelled. Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that PW1 spoke about presence of independent witnesses, but no one examined, also could not yield, since the prosecution examined the witnesses, who witnessed the occurrence to prove the allegation. Nothing forthcoming to see that, apart from PW2 and PW3, any other witness was present at the place of occurrence. 9. In this matter, the trial court as well as the appellate court gave heavy reliance on the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 to prove the allegations against the 1st accused. PW1 deposed that in between 8 a.m and 8.30 am on 30.05.2014 while she was cleaning the vessels used for collecting milk, the 2nd accused came to the place of occurrence and threatened her stating that he would not leave her alive. Soon the 1st accused hit on the head of PW1 with an iron rod and the same caused injury on her head. The 1st accused again attempted to strike on her head with an iron rod, but she blocked the same with her left hand and thereby she sustained fracture on her left hand. PW1 gave evidence that if she did not evade the blow on her head, death would have been caused to her. PW1 fell down and then the 1st accused hit on her left leg and ribs with an iron rod. She cried aloud. Soon PW2 and PW3 took her to a hospital in a car and she was treated there. During chief examination, PW1 identified her FIS as Ext.P1 and she also identified the dress and footwear worn by her at the time of attack as MO1 and MO2. She also identified MO3 iron rod used by the 1st accused to beat her. Even though PW1 was cross examined, nothing extracted to disbelieve her version. PW2 and PW3 also supported the evidence of PW1. She also identified MO3 iron rod used by the 1st accused to beat her. Even though PW1 was cross examined, nothing extracted to disbelieve her version. PW2 and PW3 also supported the evidence of PW1. PW7 is the doctor, who examined PW1 after the incident at 10.30 a.m. PW7 gave evidence that on X-ray examination, fracture on the fourth metatarsal was noted and he supported the entries in Ext.P3, O.P ticket, Ext.P4, wound certificate and deposed that PW1 sustained fracture of 4th metatarsal on the left hand. He also opined that the injuries could happen as alleged and by MO3. In the wound certificate, it was stated that PW1 was taken to the hospital by her daughter and this was pointed out by the accused before the trial court as well as the appellate court to disbelieve the version of PW2 and PW3 since their evidence that they took PW1 to the hospital, is incorrect. But the trial court as well as the appellate court negatived the contention relying on the entry made by the doctor in the wound certificate of the defacto complainant that the defacto complainant was brought to the hospital by her daughter. Accordingly it was found that the same in no way exclude PW2 or PW3 as the persons, who also accompanied PW1 to the hospital. 10. The accused examined DW1, to prove plea of alibi. According to DW1, at the time of occurrence, the 1st accused was working under him at his workshop in Mulavana. But during examination, DW1 had no definite information available regarding the date of incident and the time when the accused was available at his workshop. Trial court as well as the appellate court negatived the plea of alibi for want of proof of the same relying on the evidence given by DW1, holding that there is no convincing evidence to prove plea of alibi. 11. The Latin word `Alibi’ means `elsewhere’ or `somewhere else’ and the same is an effective defence if can be proved by convincing evidence. Sections 11 and 103 of Evidence Act are the corresponding provisions in this regard. It is provided under Section 11 of the Evidence Act that: “11. When facts not otherwise relevant become relevant. 11. The Latin word `Alibi’ means `elsewhere’ or `somewhere else’ and the same is an effective defence if can be proved by convincing evidence. Sections 11 and 103 of Evidence Act are the corresponding provisions in this regard. It is provided under Section 11 of the Evidence Act that: “11. When facts not otherwise relevant become relevant. Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant – (1) if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact; (2) if by themselves or in connection with other facts they make the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable. Illustrations (a) The question is, whether A committed a crime at Calcutta on a certain day.The fact that, on that day, A was at Lahore is relevant.The fact that, near the time when the crime was committed, A was at a distance from the place where it was committed, which would render it highly improbable, though not impossible, that he committed it, is relevant. (b) The question is, whether A committed a crime.The circumstances are such that the crime must have been committed either by A, B, C or D. Every fact which shows that the crime could have been committed by no one else, and that it was not committed by either B, C or D, is relevant.” Section 103 provides as under: “103: Burden of proof as to particular fact. The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person.” 12. Some of the essentials of a plea of Alibi are listed as follows: i) A crime should have been alleged which is punishable by law. ii) The person should be accused of the offence to make the plea of Alibi. iii) It is a defence plea where the accused states that he/she was not present at the crime spot at the time of the commission of the crime. iv) The plea must ensure that it was impossible for the accused to be physically available or present at the crime spot at the time of the commission of the offence. iii) It is a defence plea where the accused states that he/she was not present at the crime spot at the time of the commission of the crime. iv) The plea must ensure that it was impossible for the accused to be physically available or present at the crime spot at the time of the commission of the offence. v) Evidence should be provided supporting the claim of the accused in the plea that he/she was not present at the crime spot. The exception to the plea of Alibi is that the said plea is not available in all cases such as cases related to defamation, matrimonial offences to be done even without physical presence and contributory negligence without being physically present at the place of occurrence. 13. It is the well settled law that once plea of `alibi’ is raised, it is the duty of the accused to prove the same by convincing evidence that in all probabilities he was at a place different from the place of occurrence and the improbability to commit the case by himself by his physical presence. In this case, the evidence of DW1 is insufficient to hold the plea of alibi and thereby the trial court and the appellate court negatived the same. Thus the said contention also fails. 14. Even though the learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the size of MO3 iron rod is different from the one shown in the mahazar, the same appears to be not convincing. It is argued by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner further that PW1 had enmity towards the accused and therefore she framed such an occurrence to fasten culpability on the 1st accused. Similarly, inconsistency in the evidence of PW2 and PW3 also pointed out mainly raising the contention that they did not take PW1 to the hospital, since in the wound certificate it was recorded that PW1 was brought to the hospital by her daughter. In fact, this point was already found against by the trial court and the appellate court and the same is only to be justified, as already discussed. Going through the evidence available to prove the prosecution case the testimony of PW1 to PW3 supported by the evidence of PW7, are relied on by the trial court and appellate court. In fact, this point was already found against by the trial court and the appellate court and the same is only to be justified, as already discussed. Going through the evidence available to prove the prosecution case the testimony of PW1 to PW3 supported by the evidence of PW7, are relied on by the trial court and appellate court. On scrutiny of the materials with the limited power of revision, the finding of the appellate court that the accused herein committed offences punishable under Sections 324 and 326 of IPC is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, conviction entered by the appellate court in tune with the conviction entered by the trial court for the offences under Sections 324 and 326 of IPC is only to be justified. 15. Regarding the sentence, the appellate court imposed simple imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs.30,000/-for the offence under Section 324 of IPC and sentence of simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.75,000/- for the offence under Section 326 of IPC, with default imprisonment. In the facts of this case, the sentence imposed by the appellate court is liable to be modified. 16. Hence this Crl.R.P is allowed in part, by modifying the sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge as under: (i) The accused shall pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and on failure to remit the same, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for three weeks. (ii) The accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC and shall pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only). In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 17. Registry shall forward a copy of this order to the jurisdictional court for information and further steps. The trial court is specifically directed to execute the sentence modified by this Court forthwith, without fail.