ORDER : V. SRINIVAS, J. Assailing the Judgment, dated 09.03.2011 in Crl.A.No.127 of 2009 on the file of the Court of learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam, modifying the conviction and sentence passed against the A1 and A2 by the judgment dated 10.08.2009 in Sessions Case No.150 of 2008 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, to that of the offence under Section 324 of INDIAN PENAL CODE (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w 401 of the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE , 1973. 2. The revision case was admitted on 11.03.2011 and the sentence imposed against the petitioners was suspended, vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.883 of 2011. 3. The shorn of necessary facts are that : i). On 21.11.2007 morning, the defacto complainant along with her brother Narasimhappadu and her son Konna Kittayya went to their lands to provide water to the ground-nut crop and at about 12 noon all the accused armed them with sticks, knives and katuva borigas, due to which, they sustained injuries. ii). Basing on the Ex.P.1 report of P.W.1, S.I of Police, Laveru Police Station, registered a case in Cr.No.147 of 2007under Sections307, 324 and 323 read with 23 IPC and investigated into. 4. After completion of investigation, P.W.10 laid charge sheet and the same was numbered as S.C.No.150 of 2008 on the file of the Court of learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, and after full-fledged trial, found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 307 , 326, 324 and 323 read with 34 IPC and accordingly sentenced them. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the A1 to A8 preferred an appeal, videCrl.A.No.127 of 2009 on the file of the Court of learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam, which was modified sentencing the petitioners/A1 and A2 to undergo SI for a period of one year for the offence under Section 324 IPC and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- each, i.d.s.i., for three months, instead of Section 307 read with 34 IPC. Further, the conviction against the A3 and A5 is set aside and conviction against A4 is modified into conviction under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.3000/-. Conviction against A6 to A8 for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC is set aside. Further, the conviction against the A3 and A5 is set aside and conviction against A4 is modified into conviction under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.3000/-. Conviction against A6 to A8 for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC is set aside. 6. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2. 7. Heard Sri A. Ravi Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 and Miss P. Akhila Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State. 8. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as well first Appellate Court?” 9. Sri A. Ravi Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is highly interested. There are no specific overtacts attributed against the petitioners herein with respect to the injuries sustained by the defacto complainant. PW10 Investigating officer has specifically stated that PW4 have not stated before him that A1 to A4 beat PW2 either on his right leg or left leg, left year and left shoulder; thereby, the prosecution utterly failed to prove the offences alleged against the petitioners; that the Trial Court as well Sessions Court failed to appreciate the material on record in a proper perspective and erroneously convicted the petitioners and the same is liable to be set aside. 10. Per contra, Ms P.Akhila Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Statesubmits that all the accused armed with deadly weapons. All the prosecution witnesses have categorically stated about the injuries sustained by PWs 1 and 2 and the medical evidence clearly corroborates with the same. The essential ingredients of Section 324 IPC clearly attracts against the petitioners herein, and as such, the first appellate Court has rightly convicted the petitioners for the said offence; that the Courts below rightly appreciated the evidence of on record and convicted the petitioners; that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt by examining P.Ws.1 to 10 and producing Exs.P.1 to P.10, thereby, the present revision has no merits. 11. In view of the above rival contentions, this Court perused the material available on record. 12. 11. In view of the above rival contentions, this Court perused the material available on record. 12. Now, coming to the prosecution case, all the accused and PWs 1 to 3 are residents of same village and there are previous disputes in between both the parties with regard to landed property as the lands of the accused and the lands of PWs 1 to 3 are situated side by side and accordingly, cases were also filed and pending. While so, on 21.11.2007 in the morning, PWs 1 to 3 went to their fields and while they were working in their fields by fetching water to the groundnut crop, at about 12 noon, all the accused armed with sticks, katuva- borigas and knives and attacked on PW2 with an intention to kill him and A1 beat the PW2 with a knife on his right leg, A2 beat PW2 with kattuva on the left knee, A3 beat PW2 with stick on the left upper arm, A4 beat PW2 with boriga on the left ear and caused bleeding injuries. A6 to A8 also beat the PWs 1 to 3 with hands and also kicked them with legs indiscriminately. 13. In order to establish the prosecution case, PWs 1 to 10 were examined. Among the witnesses examined, PW1 to the defacto complainant, PW2 is injured, PW3 is eye witness and also injured, PWs 4 to 6 are also alleged eye witnesses to the incident, PW7 is medical officer, PW8 is the mediator for scene observation report and PWs 9 and 10 are investigating officers. 14. As rightly pointed out by the learned first Appellate Court, a complete reading of the evidence on record and weapons used by them and bodily injuries caused to PW1 and 2, there is no proper evidence to attract the ingredients of Section 307 IPC since there no such intention to kill PW2. 15. Coming to the injuries sustained, PW2 is the main injured person and he deposed that A1 beat him with a knife on the right leg, A2 beat him with a kattuva on the left leg, A3 beat him with a stick on the left shoulder, A4 beat him with a stick on the left ear, A5 beat him with a stick on both the legs, A6 beat him with hands all over the body. Even though there are minor discrepancies in the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 with regard to specific bodily injuries caused, their evidence is cogent and consistent with respect to injuries caused by A1, A2 and A4 with deadly weapons, which is positively supported by the evidence of PW7 Medical Officer. The evidence of Medical Officer without any supporting medical record and examination of Radiologist who took x-ray and gave opinion, as rightly pointed out by the first Appellate Court, cannot be said as grievous in nature. In Jameel v. State of Uttar Pradesh[3], the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the principle by stating that the punishment must be appropriate and proportional to the gravity of the offence committed. Speaking about the concept of sentencing, the Court observed thus: - “15. In operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation, sentencing process be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration.” 16. It is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. The sentencing courts are expected to consider all relevant facts and circumstances bearing on the question of sentence and proceed to impose a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence. 16. In the case at hand, though the doctor has stated the injuries to be grievous in nature but on the contrary, there is no proper documentary evidence in support of it. The weapons used also fits in to the description as provided under Section 324 ofIPC and accordingly, the first appellate Court has rightly convicted the A1 and A2 for the said offence. 17. The weapons used also fits in to the description as provided under Section 324 ofIPC and accordingly, the first appellate Court has rightly convicted the A1 and A2 for the said offence. 17. It is settled law as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Sing Anand , (2004) 7 SCC 659 that “in exercise of revisional powers, this Court need not undertaken in-depth and minutest reexamination of entire evidence, when there is no error in the findings arrived by the Trial Court as well first Appellate Court”. 18. It is settled law that in view of the concurrent findings on facts by the Courts below, this Court being Revisional Court is not expected to set aside the same without any material of perversity or manifest error in the finding arrived by the Court below. 19. However, while arguing the matter, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are previous disputes between both the parties in respect of a land and nearly 17 years has been lapsed and there are mitigating circumstances to reduce the sentence imposed against the petitioner by the Courts below. He brought to the notice of this Court a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nand Ballabh Pant v. State (Union Territory of Delhi) , AIR 1977 SC 892 , wherein the APEX Court considered the facts and reduced the period of sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellate from one year to period already undergone by the petitioners. 20. He also brought to the notice of this Court another judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Chander v. State of Delhi , AIR 1973 SC 2127 wherein also the APEX Court considered the relevant circumstances and reduced the sentence of imprisonment to that of already undergone, but increased the sentence of fine from Rs.500/- to Rs.700/-. 21. As well in Mohinder Singh v. State of Haryana , 2019 (3) Crimes 89 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held at paragraph No.2 that “they are not inclined to interfere on the merits of the case and at the same time, they cannot lose sight of fact that the occurrence took place more than a quarter of century back and to send the accused in prison after 25 years, would be travesty of justice.” 22. No doubt, in the present case also the incident was said to be happened on 21.07.2007 and by this time seventeen (17) years have already been lapsed, but there was a loss of one human life and simple injuries were said to besustained by P.W.2. 23. Having regard to the above discussion and in view of the above pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the conviction is upheld, however, to meet the ends of justice, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that of already undergone by the petitioners. 24. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in part, modifying the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 to that of already undergone by them instead of one year for the offence under Section 324 IPC. The rest of the judgment dated 09.03.2011 in Crl.A.No.127 of 2009 on the file of the Court of learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam, shall stand confirmed. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.