spot is situated away from the main road. The defence taken by the accused that some of the accused were intercepted on the road is not probable in nature. Thus, the only inference from the aforesaid evidence is that all the accused went together to the spot of offence with common object and they assaulted complainant and other injured witnesses. Fracture injury was caused to the mother of the complainant and simple injuries were caused to other witnesses. In view of these circumstances, it cannot be said that the Trial Court has committed error in convicting and sentencing the appellants for offences punishable under sections 325, 323, 506 read with 149 of IPC and also for offence under section 147 of IPC. Already lenient view is taken by the Trial Court. The Trial Court must have taken into consideration the circumstance that the appellants are close relatives of injured witnesses. The fine amount is disbursed amongst the complainant and other injured witnesses. The circumstances that the injured received treatment at two places and the hospital from Pravara is trust hospital needs to be kept in mind. In view of these circumstances, it cannot be said that the fine imposed is on higher side. Sufficient opportunity was given to the appellants to argue on the point of sentence. In view of aforesaid circumstances, this Court holds that interference in the judgment and order of the Trial Court is not possible.
