ORDER : 1. The Criminal Revision Case, under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "Cr.P.C.?) is filed on behalf of the petitioner/accused assailing the Judgment dated 20.03.2009 passed in Crl.A.No.313 of 2007 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari, at Amalapuram (for short, 1 st Appellate Court?), whereby the 1 st Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal by modifying the Judgment and conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short, IPC?) instead of Section 326 of IPC vide Judgment dated 31.10.2007 passed in C.C.No.87 of 2005 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothapeta (for short, „the Trial Court?). 2. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in C.C.No.87 of 2005. 3. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that: On 28.05.2004 at about 6.00 A.M., the accused, armed with a stick, pounced upon P.W.1, Ch. Syamalavathi was at her house situated in Utchilivaripeta, beaten indiscriminately and also threatened with dire consequences, and she sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, P.W.1 went to P. Gannavaram and presented a report to the Sub Inspector of Police. On the strength of the said report, he registered a case in Crime No.46 of 2004 under Section 325 and 506 of the IPC. During the course of the investigation, the Sub Inspector of Police arrested the accused on 30.05.2004 and sent him to judicial custody. 4. The learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothapeta, took cognizance against the accused under Sections 325 and 506 I.P.C. On the appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. 5. The accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., and he denied the commission of the offence. A charge under Section 326 of IPC against the accused was framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. During the course of the trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 9 were examined and Exs.P1 to P9 and M.Os.1 to 3 were marked. A charge under Section 326 of IPC against the accused was framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. During the course of the trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 9 were examined and Exs.P1 to P9 and M.Os.1 to 3 were marked. After the closure of the evidence of prosecution, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. concerning the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in by the prosecution, for which he denied the same, and he stated that he had no defence witnesses on his behalf. 7. The trial Court on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 326 of IPC and he was convicted and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and also sentence to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 326 of IPC vide its Judgment, dated 31.10.2007 in C.C.No.87 of 2005. 8. Felt aggrieved of the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the unsuccessful accused filed Criminal Appeal No.313 of 2007 before the 1 st Appellate Court and the 1 st Appellate Court partly allowed the Appeal by modifying the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused for the offence under Section 326 of IPC to Section 324 of IPC and he was sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and directed to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, out of it, a sum of Rs.4000/- shall be paid to P.W.1. In default of fine, the accused shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 324 of IPC. Felt aggrieved by the same, the unsuccessful appellant/accused filed the present Criminal Revision Case, challenging the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.313 of 2007. 9. Now, the point that arises for consideration is: (I) Whether the conviction recorded against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC instead of Section 326 of IPC by the 1 st Appellate Court by modifying the Judgment of the trial Court is sustainable in law? (II) Whether the sentence passed by the 1 st Appellate Court warrant any interference? POINTS Nos.I AND II 10. (II) Whether the sentence passed by the 1 st Appellate Court warrant any interference? POINTS Nos.I AND II 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the Courts below erred in not extending the benefit of doubt to the accused and instead relied heavily on the inconsistent and unreliable testimony of prosecution witnesses. The conviction under Section 324 IPC by the 1 st appellate court is unwarranted and contrary to the evidence on record. The prosecution's case is riddled with discrepancies, contradictions, and improbabilities. The trial court's findings are based more on conjecture and surmise than on legal evidence, and the 1 st appellate court has merely echoed the same. The prosecution failed to establish the scene of the offence with clarity. While PW.1 claimed the incident did not occur at the accused?s vacant site, the mediator?s report and the rough sketch are inconsistent with her version. Further, PW.1?s testimony regarding the weapon used is contradictory, where she stated in the court that the injuries were caused by a stout stick, but the wound certificate (Ex. P.3) reflects that she told the doctor (PW.4) it was a wooden log (dunga), despite admitting she knows the difference. Additionally, there is no corroboration between the testimony of PW.1 and that of PW.9, and the prosecution witnesses appear to be interested parties, further weakening the case. The absence of independent corroboration warrants acquittal. Moreover, the delay in the Magistrate's receipt of the report, despite it being sent earlier, remains unexplained. He further contends that the fine amounts were paid Rs.1,000/- vide Receipt No.5941 dated 31.10.2007, and Rs.4,000/- vide Receipt No. 8136 dated 20.03.2009. 11. 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 1 st Appellate Court”. 12. The Apex Court in Manju Ram Kalita V. State of Assam , [ (2009) 13 SCC 330 ] , held that: “ 9. ....if the courts below have recorded the finding of fact, the question of re-appreciation of evidence by the third court does not arise unless it is found to be totally perverse. 12. The Apex Court in Manju Ram Kalita V. State of Assam , [ (2009) 13 SCC 330 ] , held that: “ 9. ....if the courts below have recorded the finding of fact, the question of re-appreciation of evidence by the third court does not arise unless it is found to be totally perverse. The higher court does not sit as a regular court of appeal. Its function is to ensure that law is being properly administered. Such a court cannot embark upon fruitless task of determining the issues by reappreciating the evidence. 10. This Court would not ordinarily interfere with the concurrent findings on pure questions of fact and review the evidence again unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying the departure from the normal practice. 8. ….The position may undoubtedly be different if interference is one of law from [the] facts admitted and proved or where the finding of fact is materially affected by violation of any rule of law or procedure.” 13. The aforesaid view was further reiterated by the Hon?ble Supreme Court in Malkeet Singh Gill V. The State of Chattisgarh , [ AIR 2022 SC 3283 ] , thus: “8. ….The High Court in criminal revision against conviction is not supposed to exercise the jurisdiction alike to the appellate Court and the scope of interference in revision is extremely narrow. Section 397 of Criminal Procedure Code (in short „CrPC?) vests jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court. The object of the provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be wellfounded error which is to be determined on the merits of individual case. It is also well settled that while considering the same, the revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case to reverse those findings.” 14. Heard both sides and perused the record. 15. As seen from the judgment in C.C.No.87 of 2005 dated 31.10.2007, the trial Court convicted the accused under Section 326 IPC and sentenced him to two years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, a sentence of one month. Aggrieved by this, the accused filed Crl.A.No.313 of 2007. Heard both sides and perused the record. 15. As seen from the judgment in C.C.No.87 of 2005 dated 31.10.2007, the trial Court convicted the accused under Section 326 IPC and sentenced him to two years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, a sentence of one month. Aggrieved by this, the accused filed Crl.A.No.313 of 2007. By judgment dated 20.03.2009, the appellate Court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction under Section 326 IPC and instead convicting the accused under Section 324 IPC. He was sentenced to six months of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, of which Rs.4,000/- was directed to be paid to P.W.1. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rs. 1,000/- was paid vide receipt No. 5941 dated 31.10.2007, and the fine of Rs. 4,000/- was paid vide receipt No. 8136 dated 20.03.2009. Learned counsel further argues that the trial Court?s judgment was based on conjecture rather than legal evidence and that the accused should have been acquitted, as the prosecution failed to establish the scene of the offence according to P.W.1?s testimony. 17. The record shows that P.W.1 is the injured person. Evidence reveals there are land disputes between the accused and P.Ws.1 and 2. Both the trial Court and 1 st appellate Court considered the arguments from both sides and acknowledged a possible delay in submitting the FIR. However, such a delay alone does not warrant suspicion of the FIR's veracity. Both Courts provided clear and convincing reasons for the delay, and this Court finds no cause to interfere. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no independent witness to the incident. While P.W.1 is the injured party and P.W.2, her husband, supported the prosecution, P.Ws.3 and 5, though examined, turned hostile. However, this Court agrees with the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that the evidence of the injured witness, corroborated by her husband, is reliable. The 1st appellate Court also noted that P.W.9, Ch. Sudarshana Rao, who is related to the accused, witnessed the incident and supported the prosecution?s case. 19. P.W.1 testified that while going to dispose of garbage, the accused struck her with a stout stick. Although P.W.2 did not witness the incident, both the trial and appellate Courts found no discrepancy regarding the weapon?s nature. Sudarshana Rao, who is related to the accused, witnessed the incident and supported the prosecution?s case. 19. P.W.1 testified that while going to dispose of garbage, the accused struck her with a stout stick. Although P.W.2 did not witness the incident, both the trial and appellate Courts found no discrepancy regarding the weapon?s nature. The appellate Court accepted P.W.1?s account but did not uphold the trial Court?s finding of grievous injury due to the absence of a Radiologist?s report. The record shows P.W.1 sustained a linear laceration on the head, four contusions, and an abrasion. 20. Upon careful perusal of the record, this Court concurs with the 1st appellate Court that the accused struck P.W.1 with M.O.1 stick. However, the Trial Court as well as the 1 st Appellate Court did not consider the size, measurement, and dimensions of the weapon to classify it as a dangerous weapon. There exists a material discrepancy regarding the weapon allegedly used in the commission of the offence. PW.1, in her testimony, stated that she sustained injuries at the hands of the accused, who assaulted her with a stout stick. However, the wound certificate (Ex.A.3), issued by the examining doctor (PW.4), records that PW.1 reported being injured with a wooden log. Furthermore, during cross-examination, PW.1 acknowledged her ability to distinguish between a stout stick and a "dunga" (wooden log). It is pertinent to note that MO.1, which has been produced as the alleged weapon, is a casuarina stick. This description does not align with PW.1's version, either in her evidence or as recorded in the wound certificate. If indeed MO.1 was the weapon used, PW.1 could reasonably have stated it as a casuarina stick during her deposition. This inconsistency casts doubt on whether MO.1 is the actual weapon used in the offence. Nevertheless, the consistent aspect of the record is that PW.1 was assaulted by the accused and sustained injuries as a result. Both the trial and appellate courts have concurrently held that the accused caused injuries to PW.1. Moreover, there is no substantive evidence on record to establish that MO.1 qualifies as a deadly weapon within the meaning of the law. Therefore, this Court holds that the offence is established under Section 323 IPC, rather than Section 324 IPC. The offence occurred on 28.05.2004, nearly 21 years ago. Moreover, there is no substantive evidence on record to establish that MO.1 qualifies as a deadly weapon within the meaning of the law. Therefore, this Court holds that the offence is established under Section 323 IPC, rather than Section 324 IPC. The offence occurred on 28.05.2004, nearly 21 years ago. The record shows that the accused has a wife and children and is the sole breadwinner of his family. 21. In light of the circumstances discussed above, and upon a careful evaluation of the material available on record, there is nothing to indicate that the accused has any prior criminal antecedents. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interest of justice, it is deemed appropriate to refrain from imposing a sentence of imprisonment. Instead, the ends of justice would be adequately met by directing that the fine amount already paid by the accused be awarded to PW.1 as compensation. Accordingly, the points are answered. 22. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in part , and the conviction and sentence under Section 324 of the IPC, as recorded by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari, in Criminal Appeal No. 313 of 2007 dated 20.03.2009, is hereby set aside. However, the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC. Considering that nearly sixteen years have elapsed since the date of the offence, and in light of the circumstances stated hereinabove and considering the imprisonment period undergone, this Court deems it appropriate not to impose a sentence of imprisonment. Instead, in the interest of justice, the accused is directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the victim (PW.1). As the accused has already deposited a fine amount of Rs.5,000/-, the said amount shall be treated as compensation and disbursed to PW.1 under Section 357(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, upon due verification of identity. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand discharged. Interim orders granted, if any, shall stand vacated, and the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.