ORDER : M.B. SNEHALATHA, J. Revision petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6 in C.C.No.533/2010 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Sulthanbathery. In this revision petition they challenged the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence in C.C.No.533/2010 and Crl.A No.30/2013 of Sessions Court, Kalpetta, by which they were convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 448 , 427 and 324 r/w Section 34 IPC. 2. In brief, the prosecution case is that by alleging that PWs 1 and 2 killed a cow by poisoning, on 31.8.2010 at 12.30 pm, accused along with 30 others trespassed into the residential premises of PWs 1; A1 to A6 voluntarily caused hurt to PWs 1 and 2 with sticks and caused injuries to them. Accused also committed mischief by dismantling window pane of the house of PW1 and caused damage to the electrical and plumbing materials. Accused thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 448 , 427 and 324 r/w Section 34 of IPC. 3. After trial, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 448 , 427 and 324 r/w Section 34 of IPC and they were convicted and sentenced for the said offences. The appeal filed by the revision petitioner as Crl.A No.30/2013 was dismissed by the Sessions Court, Kalpetta by confirming the conviction and sentence. 4. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the revision petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6 have filed this revision petition contending that there are material discrepancies in the versions of the prosecution witnesses and therefore the learned Magistrate and the learned Session judge went wrong in convicting and sentencing the accused; that the trial court and the appellate court failed to take note of the fact that even as per the prosecution case, there were more than 30 persons in the group of assailants and therefore there was no proper identification of the assailants; that the prosecution has not succeeded in establishing the case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt and therefore the conviction and sentence against the accused are liable to be set aside. 5. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the concurrent finding of guilt rendered by the trial court and the appellate court and contended that there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the conviction and sentence against the accused. 6. 5. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the concurrent finding of guilt rendered by the trial court and the appellate court and contended that there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the conviction and sentence against the accused. 6. Now let us see whether there are any reasons to interfere with the judgment of conviction and sentence against the accused. 7. It is well settled that the revisional power of the High Court cannot be equated with the power of appellate court and therefore ordinarily it would not be appropriate for the High Court to re appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the learned Magistrate as well as the learned Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court, which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. Unless the order passed by the learned Magistrate and the appellate court is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is non consideration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records, the revisional court is not justified in setting aside the order merely because another view is possible. 8. In Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan vs. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke [ (2015) 3 SCC 123 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: “14........Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records, the revisional court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible. The revisional court is not meant to act as an appellate court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. Revisional power of the court Under Sections 397 to 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure is not to be equated with that of an appeal. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. Revisional power of the court Under Sections 397 to 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction.” 9. Bearing in mind the above principle, now let us analyse the evidence on record. PW1 is the defacto complainant. PW2 is her brother. PW7 is the husband of PW1. PW1 and PW2 are the injured. According to them, on 31.8.2010 at 12.30 pm, accused 1 to 6 trespassed into the veranda of their house and assaulted them with sticks and stones. Accused also committed mischief by damaging the glass of the window and the front door of the house. Accused also caused damage to the water tank, PVC pipe, and switchboard. PW7, the husband of PW1 has testified that he saw the accused persons running away from his house, soon after the incident. He too deposed about the mischief committed by the accused in his house. 10. Exts.P2 and P3 wound certificates and the versions of doctors who were examined as PW3 and PW4 corroborate the versions of PW1 and PW2 that they sustained injuries on 31.8.2010 at 12.30 pm. Ext.P4 scene mahazar throw light on the mischief caused in the house of PWs 1 and 2 by the assailants, as rightly held by the learned Magistrate. PWs 1 and 2 have categorically spoken about the presence of the accused and the overt acts done by them. So the contention raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners/accused regarding the identity of assailants is untenable. On a re appreciation of the evidence adduced and the materials produced by the prosecution, this Court finds no reason at all to interfere with the concurrent finding of guilt of the accused for the offences under Sections 448 , 427 and 324 r/w Section 34 of IPC. On a re appreciation of the evidence adduced and the materials produced by the prosecution, this Court finds no reason at all to interfere with the concurrent finding of guilt of the accused for the offences under Sections 448 , 427 and 324 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Hence, the conviction of the revision petitioners for the offences under Sections 448 , 427 and 324 r/w Section 34 of IPC stands confirmed. 11. The next aspect for consideration is whether the sentence imposed by the trial court needs any interference by this Court. 12. The sentence imposed by the trial court as confirmed in appeal is as under: “1. Accused Nos.1 to 5 are sentenced to simple imprisonment for 3 months each for the offence punishable under Section 448 r/w 34 of IPC and to simple imprisonment for 6 months each for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC and to simple imprisonment for 3 months each and to pay fine of Rs.2,500/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month each for the offence punishable under Section 427 r/w 34 of IPC. 2. If fine amount is realized from A1 to 5, it shall be released to PW1 as compensation under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C. 3. The above substantive sentence shall run concurrently. 4. Accused No.6 is sentenced to imprisonment till rising of court and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days for the offence punishable under Section 448 r/w 34 of IPC and to imprisonment till rising of court and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment of 15 days for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC and to imprisonment till rising of court and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment of 15 days for the offence punishable under Section 427 r/w 34 of IPC. 5. If the fine amount is realized from A6, it shall be released to PW1 as compensation under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C. 6. The above substantive sentence shall run concurrently.” 13. 5. If the fine amount is realized from A6, it shall be released to PW1 as compensation under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C. 6. The above substantive sentence shall run concurrently.” 13. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/A1 to A3 and 5 and 6 pleaded leniency in the matter of sentence and submitted that the accused are first time offenders who have no criminal antecedents and therefore the maximum leniency may be shown in the matter of sentence. It was further pointed out that all the accused except A3 are senior citizens aged around 70 years and if they are jailed for an incident that occurred 15 years ago in the heat of passion, much hardships would be caused to them and their family. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that A2 is suffering from cancer. 14. The incident was in the year 2010. 15 years have elapsed after the incident. Regard being had to the age of the accused and other attending facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to A1 to A3 and A5 for the offences under Sections 448 , 427 and 324 r/w 34 of IPC can be reduced to imprisonment till rising of the court and fine of Rs.5,000/- each can be awarded to A1, A2, A3 and A5 for each of the offences. The sentence against A6 needs no modification. 15. In the result, revision petition is allowed in part as follows: a) Conviction of the revision petitioners for the offences under Sections 448 , 427 and 324 r/w Section 34 of IPC stands confirmed. b) The sentence against A1 to A3 and A5 is modified as follows: (i) A1 to 3 and 5 are sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence under Section 448 IPC. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each. (ii) A1 to 3 and 5 are sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence under Section 427 IPC. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each. (ii) A1 to 3 and 5 are sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence under Section 427 IPC. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each. (iii) A1 to 3 and 5 are sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence under Section 324 IPC. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each. (iv) The sentence awarded to A6 by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court stands confirmed. (v) The fine amount, if realised, shall be paid to PW1 as compensation under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C. The revision petitioners shall surrender before the trial court on 21.7.2025 for suffering the modified sentence of imprisonment and fine. On failure to do so, as directed above, the trial court shall take appropriate steps to execute the modified sentence in accordance with law. Registry shall transmit the records to the trial court forthwith along with a copy of this order.