ORDER : Kauser Edappagath, J. This criminal revision petition has been filed challenging the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Sections 143 , 147, 148, 452, 323 and 324 read with Section 149 of IPC . 2. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 5 and 7 in C.C.No.1258 of 2007 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perumbavoor (for short, 'the trial court'). They along with the 6 th accused faced trial for the offences under Sections 143 , 147, 148, 452, 323 and 324 read with Section 149 of IPC . 3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 07.06.2007 at 01.00 a.m., the accused formed an unlawful assembly and trespassed into the house of the PW1, armed with deadly weapons like sword and assaulted PW1, PW2 to PW4 and PW6 to PW8. 4. All the accused, except the 6 th accused faced trial. The case as against 6 th accused was split up since he was absconding. It is submitted that later on he appeared, faced trial and ultimately, he was acquitted. 5. On the side of the prosecution, 11 witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW11 and Exts.P1 to P11 were marked. On the side of the defence, the 1 st accused was examined as DW1 and two documents were marked as Exts.D1 and D2. After trial, the trial court found the petitioners guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 148, 452, 323 and 324 read with Section 149 of IPC and they were convicted for the said offences. On the side of the defence, the 1 st accused was examined as DW1 and two documents were marked as Exts.D1 and D2. After trial, the trial court found the petitioners guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 148, 452, 323 and 324 read with Section 149 of IPC and they were convicted for the said offences. They were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months each for the offence punishable under Section 143 of IPC , simple imprisonment for a period of three months each for the offence punishable under Section 147 of IPC , simple imprisonment for a period of six months each for the offence punishable under Section 148 of IPC , rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 452 of IPC , in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months each, simple imprisonment for a period of three months each for the offence punishable under Section 323 and rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each and to pay fine of Rs.4,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months each for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC . The substantive sentence of imprisonment was ordered to be run concurrently. Out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.2,500/- each was ordered to be paid to PW1, PW2, PW4, PW6, PW7 and PW8 as compensation under Section 357 (3) of Cr.P.C. The petitioners challenged the conviction and sentence of the trial court before the Additional District and Sessions Court-II, North Paravur (for short, 'the appellate court') in Crl.Appeal No.757 of 2012. The appellate court dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence of the trial court. This revision petition has been filed challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court as well as the appellate court. 6. I have heard Sri.K.I.Abdul Rasheed, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Sanal P. Raj, the learned Public Prosecutor. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners impeached the finding of the trial court as well as the appellate court on appreciation of evidence and resultant finding as to the guilt. 6. I have heard Sri.K.I.Abdul Rasheed, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Sanal P. Raj, the learned Public Prosecutor. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners impeached the finding of the trial court as well as the appellate court on appreciation of evidence and resultant finding as to the guilt. The learned counsel submitted that the evidence of the injured witnesses and the occurrence witnesses are contradictory to each other and full of inconsistencies and therefore, their evidence ought not to have been relied on by the trial court as well as the appellate court to convict the petitioners. The learned counsel further submitted that the weapon allegedly used for the commission of the offence was not recovered, which is fatal to the prosecution case. The learned counsel also submitted that the defence evidence adduced by the petitioners would show that the petitioners were attacked by PW1 and others and a counter case has been registered, but due to the political influence, the said counter case was referred as false. Since there is no evidence to show that a dangerous weapon has been used, the conviction under Sections 324 and 148 of IPC cannot be sustained, submitted the learned counsel for the petitioners. Lastly, the learned counsel submitted that since no serious injuries were sustained by any of the injured persons, the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court is exorbitant. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the findings and verdict handed down by the trial court as well as the appellate court and argued that necessary ingredients of Sections 143 , 147, 148, 452, 323 and 324 read with Section 149 of IPC had been established and the prosecution had succeeded in proving the case beyond reasonable doubt. 8. The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of PW1 to PW4, PW6 to PW8, PW10 and PW11 to prove its case and to fix the culpability on the accused. PW1 is the defacto complainant and PW2 is the wife of PW1. PW3 and PW7 are the brothers of PW1. They were residing near to the house of PW1 and PW2. PW4 to PW6 are the neighbours of PW1. The incident took place in the midnight at 1.00 a.m. on 7.6.2007 at the house of PW1 and PW2. PW1 is the defacto complainant and PW2 is the wife of PW1. PW3 and PW7 are the brothers of PW1. They were residing near to the house of PW1 and PW2. PW4 to PW6 are the neighbours of PW1. The incident took place in the midnight at 1.00 a.m. on 7.6.2007 at the house of PW1 and PW2. PW3 and PW7 came to the scene of occurrence on hearing the hue and cry of PW1 and PW2. PW8 was travelling in a scooter at the time of the incident and when he heard the commotion from the residence of PW1, he went to the place of incident. 9. PW1 deposed that on 7.6.2007 at about 1.00 a.m., the petitioners along with the 6 th accused trespassed into his house and attacked him. He specifically deposed that the 1 st accused stamped on his stomach and others beat him left and right. When his wife intervened, the accused assaulted her also. He also spoke about the motive. According to him, the accused attempted to fill their paddy land with soil. He objected the same and informed it to the police and that was the reason for assault by the accused. PW2 gave evidence in tune with the evidence given by PW1. She supported the version of PW1. She also deposed that the 1 st accused trespassed into the house, stamped PW1 and when she intervened, the 2 nd accused forcefully caught hold of her hand, pulled her hair and on hearing her cry, the neighbours rushed to their house and the accused beat them also. She specifically deposed that one Reby (PW8) who came to the place of occurrence was assaulted by the 1 st accused with sword. PW1 and PW2 identified the accused. PW3 is the brother of PW1. He deposed that he came to the scene of occurrence on hearing the cry of PW1, where he saw the accused at the courtyard. He further deposed that he saw the 1 st accused inflicting injury on PW8 with a sword. PW4 is the neighbour of PW1. She deposed that she came to the scene of occurrence on hearing the cry of PW1 and PW2 and when she attempted to separate the accused, they pushed her down and thus sustained injury on her knee. PW6 is another neighbour of PW1. PW4 is the neighbour of PW1. She deposed that she came to the scene of occurrence on hearing the cry of PW1 and PW2 and when she attempted to separate the accused, they pushed her down and thus sustained injury on her knee. PW6 is another neighbour of PW1. She also testified that, when she interfered, the petitioners pushed her down. PW7 is another brother of PW1. He deposed that when he reached the residence of PW1, he saw the accused beating PW1 and when he attempted to separate the accused, the 1 st accused beat on his back. He further deposed that when PW8 reached the place of occurrence, the 1 st accused gave a blow to his forehead with a sword and thereby sustained injury. PW8 deposed that, while he was travelling through the public road in front of the residence of PW1, he heard commotion from the courtyard of PW1 and at that time he saw the fight between the accused and other persons and when he enquired about the matter, the 1 st accused gave a blow to his forehead with a sword. 10. Even though PW1 to PW4 and PW6 to PW8 were cross examined in length, nothing tangible could be extracted to discredit their testimony. It must be noted that they are injured persons. It is settled that the evidence of the injured persons should be given weightage. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out certain contradictions and discrepancies in their evidence. But the said contradictions are insignificant and do not affect the fabric of the prosecution case. The evidence of the injured and occurrence witnesses gets corroboration from the medical evidence. Ext.P10 is the doctor who examined PW1, PW2, PW4, PW6 and PW7 and issued Exts.P4, P5, P6, P7 and P8 wound certificates. The doctor who examined PW8 was not available. Hence, his wound certificate, Ext.P11, was marked through another doctor who was examined as PW11. From the evidence of PW1 to PW4 and PW6 to PW8, the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the petitioners had trespassed into the house of PW1 and PW2 and assaulted them. It is settled that reappreciation of evidence is not permissible in revision. Hence, his wound certificate, Ext.P11, was marked through another doctor who was examined as PW11. From the evidence of PW1 to PW4 and PW6 to PW8, the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the petitioners had trespassed into the house of PW1 and PW2 and assaulted them. It is settled that reappreciation of evidence is not permissible in revision. Hence, I see no reason to interfere with the findings of the trial court as well as the appellate court that the prosecution has succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioners trespassed into the house of PW1 and PW2 and assaulted them. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is absolutely no legal evidence to prove that PW8 was assaulted with sword and hence the conviction under Sections 324 and 148 of the IPC cannot be sustained at any rate. Section 324 of the IPC deals with voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon or means. The Section covers instance where an individual with intention inflicts hurt on another person. The provision lists various instruments through which hurt could be inflicted, including instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as weapon of offence, is likely to cause death. Though the term “dangerous weapon” is not expressly defined in IPC , Section 324 specifies various instruments or means through which hurt could be inflicted. To attract the provision, the accused must have intentionally caused hurt to another person, and the said hurt must be inflicted by one of the specified categories of instruments or means outlined in the Section. The instruments specified in the Section consist of two categories. The 1 st category mentions instruments for shooting, stabbing or cutting. The 2 nd category mentions any instrument that, when used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death. According to the prosecution, the sword, allegedly used by the 1 st accused to inflict injury on PW8 is a weapon for cutting and hence, Section 324 of the IPC is attracted. 12. It is pertinent to note that in this case, the weapon used for the commission of offence was not recovered. PW1 admitted in the cross examination that he did not see the sword in the hands of any of the accused. He also deposed that he did not identify the sword at the police station. 12. It is pertinent to note that in this case, the weapon used for the commission of offence was not recovered. PW1 admitted in the cross examination that he did not see the sword in the hands of any of the accused. He also deposed that he did not identify the sword at the police station. PW8 who is the competent witness to speak about the sword allegedly used for the commission of the offence only stated that the 1 st accused collected a sword from the 2 nd accused and inflicted a cut injury on his forehead. PW2, PW3 and PW7 deposed that the 1 st accused inflicted cut injury on the forehead of PW8. But none of these witnesses gave any description about the sword. In this respect, it is pertinent to take note of the medical evidence that is available. Ext.P11 is the wound certificate of PW8. It has been marked through another doctor, since the doctor who examined PW8 and issued Ext.P11 was not available as he was abroad. The evidence of PW11 coupled with Ext.P11 would only show that PW8 has sustained a lacerated wound on the left supta orbital region just above eye brow. If a sharp weapon like a sword is used, the injury would have been an incised wound. No such wound was sustained by PW8. That apart, the evidence of PW11 and Ext.P11 would show that cause of injury alleged by PW8 to the doctor was that he was attacked with a torch and hand. In cross examination the doctor has admitted that there was no allegation as to the use of any weapon. The evidence is lacking in this case to prove that the 1 st accused inflicted injury on PW8 with a sword. Therefore, the conviction under Section 324 of the IPC cannot be sustained. In order to attract Section 148 of the IPC , the persons of the unlawful assembly must be armed with deadly weapon. Therefore, the offence under Section 148 of the IPC is also not attracted. As already stated, there is evidence to show that the petitioners have committed the remaining offences. 13. What remains is the sentence. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the injury sustained by PW1 to PW4, PW6 and PW7 are very negligible in nature and the injury sustained by PW8 is also not a serious one. As already stated, there is evidence to show that the petitioners have committed the remaining offences. 13. What remains is the sentence. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the injury sustained by PW1 to PW4, PW6 and PW7 are very negligible in nature and the injury sustained by PW8 is also not a serious one. The learned counsel further submitted that, the evidence of DW1 and Exts. D1 and D2 would show that in fact there was a confrontation between the accused and the defacto complainant and others and even a counter case has been registered. The learned counsel pleaded that the substantive sentence may be confined to imprisonment till the rising of the court. I am also of the view that considering the above factors submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also taking into account the fact that the petitioners have been undergoing the trauma of trial for the last 13 years, the substantive sentence of imprisonment can be confined to imprisonment till the rising of the court. At the same time, adequate compensation has to be ordered to be paid to the defacto complainant and the injured. 14. Section 357 of Cr.P.C is an important provision empowering the court to award compensation to the victims of the crime while passing the judgment of conviction. In addition to conviction, the court may order the accused to pay reasonable amount by way of compensation to the victims who suffered by the action of the accused. It is a measure of responding appropriate claim to the crime as well as reconciling the victim with the offender. The Supreme Court in Hari Kishan and another v. Sukhbir Singh and others [ AIR 1988 SC 2127 ] highlighted the necessity of invoking the power under Section 357 of Cr.P.C by the court. The Supreme Court has recommended that the power under Section 357 of Cr.P.C is to be exercised liberally as to meet the ends of justice in a better way. 15. In the light of the above discussion, the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 324 and 148 of the IPC are hereby set aside. The conviction of the petitioners under Sections 143 , 147, 452 and 323 read with Section 149 of IPC is confirmed. 15. In the light of the above discussion, the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 324 and 148 of the IPC are hereby set aside. The conviction of the petitioners under Sections 143 , 147, 452 and 323 read with Section 149 of IPC is confirmed. The petitioners are sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court for the offences punishable under Sections 143 and 147 of the IPC . Each of them are further sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of court and to pay a fine of ?1,000/- (Rupees thousand only) each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 452 of the IPC . Each of them are also sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC . The petitioners shall together pay a compensation of ?20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) to each of the injured (PW1, PW2, PW4, PW6 and PW7) and a sum of ?1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) to PW8 under Section 357 (3) of Cr.P.C., in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months each for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC . The substantive sentence of till the rising of the court shall run concurrently. The petitioners shall appear before the trial court within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to suffer the imprisonment till the rising of the court and to deposit the compensation. On the deposit of the compensation, the trial court is directed to issue notice to PW1, PW2, PW4, PW6, PW7 and PW8 and release the amount to them. The fine amount already deposited by the petitioners before the trial court shall be refunded to the petitioners. The criminal revision petition is disposed of as above.