ORDER : JOBIN SEBASTIAN, J. The criminal revision petition has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , challenging the judgment dated 08.11.2010 in Criminal Appeal No.211/2008 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Vatakara, arising out of the judgment dated 05.02.2008 in C.C. No.447/2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vatakara. The revision petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1 to 5 in the said case. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 07.05.2003 at about 6.30 p.m., the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and, in prosecution of the common object of the said assembly, criminally trespassed into Room No. XXVI/112 of the Vatakara Municipality, where PW2, a Medical Officer, was conducting consultations and which was under t he possession of PW9. Thereafter, the accused allegedly abused PW2 in obscene language, assaulted her, and outraged her modesty. According to the prosecution, the accused committed the aforesaid acts due to prior enmity arising out of an incident in which a patient named Reena had died while undergoing treatment under PW2. Thus, the accused are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 452, 354, and 294(b) r/w 149 of the IPC . 3. The learned Magistrate, after trial, found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 452, and 354 r/w Section 149 of the IPC and convicted them thereunder. Consequently, the accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 143 , and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 452 . Moreover, accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one and a half years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 354 r/w 149 . Likewise, the fourth accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months for the offence punishable under r/w 149 of the . Fine amount, if realised, half of the same was ordered to be given to PW2 as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. 4. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.211/2008 before the Sessions Court, Kozhikode. Fine amount, if realised, half of the same was ordered to be given to PW2 as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. 4. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.211/2008 before the Sessions Court, Kozhikode. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vatakara, upon hearing the appeal, found all the accused not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 354 r/w 149 of the IPC , and instead they were found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 323 r/w 149 . For the said offence, all the accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Moreover, the appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court against all the accused for offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147 a nd 452 of the . Aggrieved thereby, the accused has preferred the present revision petition. 5. Heard Sri. Sunny Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and Smt. Anima M., the learned Public Prosecutor. The records were also pursued. 6. This is a case in which accused Nos. 1 to 5 allegedly trespassed into the consulting room of a doctor and assaulted her. The alleged motive for the commission of the offence was the death of a relative of one of the accused while undergoing treatment under the said doctor. 7. Before delving into the question whether any interference is required in the concurrent findings, it is to be borne in mind that a court exercising revisional jurisdiction will interfere with orders or judgments of t he courts below only if those orders and judgments are suffering from incorrectness, illegality, or impropriety. Unless the judgment passed by the learned magistrate or by the appellate court is perverse or the view taken by the court is unreasonable, or there is non-consideration of any relevant material, or there is palpable misreading of records, the revisional court is not justified in interfering with the judgment. The revisional court cannot act like an Appellate Court. 8. In State of Kerala v. Jathavedan Namboodiri [ AIR 1999 SC 981 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus: “ In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. 8. In State of Kerala v. Jathavedan Namboodiri [ AIR 1999 SC 981 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus: “ In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of Supervisory Jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an Appellate Court nor can it be treated even as a second Appellate Jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same w hen the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the 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. ” 9. Keeping in mind the above principles and reverting to the facts of the present case, it can be seen that the conviction is mainly based on the evidence of PW2, the injured witness. Undisputedly, PW2 is an injured witness. It is well settled through a catena of judicial pronouncements that the testimony of an injured witness is entitled to special weight and credibility in law. Ordinarily, an injured witness would not falsely implicate an innocent person while allowing the real assailant to escape punishment. 10. The impugned judgment reveals t hat the version of PW2 regarding the occurrence stands sufficiently corroborated by the medical evidence adduced in the case. The medical evidence clearly establishes that immediately after the incident, PW2 sought medical treatment at the Government Hospital, Vatakara, with a history of assault. The doctor who examined PW2 and issued Ext.P3 wound certificate was examined a s PW4. PW4 deposed that on the date of the incident, he clinically examined PW2 and noted contusion measuring 4 x 4 cm below the right eye; contusion measuring 2 x 1 cm on the lower lip; tenderness on both elbows and the left hip. Obviously, the injuries noted during the medical examination correspond to the overt acts attributed to the accused. 11. One of the main contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners concerns the identity of the accused. Obviously, the injuries noted during the medical examination correspond to the overt acts attributed to the accused. 11. One of the main contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners concerns the identity of the accused. According to the learned counsel, the identification of the accused made by PW2 for the first time before the Court cannot be relied upon in the absence of a prior test identification parade. 12. While considering the said contention, it is pertinent to note that the incident occurred at about 6.00 p.m. There is a specific allegation that all the accused forcibly entered the consulting room of PW2 and assaulted her with their bare hands. This is not a case akin to a hit-and-run incident where the injured would have only a fleeting glimpse of the assailants. On the contrary, the facts and circumstances clearly indicate that PW2 had sufficient opportunity to observe the accused, thereby enabling her to identify them during trial. 13. If the substantive evidence regarding identification before the Court is found to be convincing and reliable, the Court cannot insist that such evidence must necessarily be corroborated by a prior test identification parade. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to disbelieve the identification of the accused made by PW2 before the Court merely on account of the absence of a test identification parade. 14. Moreover, it is evident that both the trial court and the appellate court arrived at the finding of guilt against the revision petitioners/accused only after a proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced in the case. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners has not pointed out any material to demonstrate that the appreciation of evidence or the concurrent findings of conviction recorded by t he courts below suffer from any illegality, impropriety, or perversity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 15. Accordingly, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the finding that the revision petitioners/accused are guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 452, and 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code . 16. However, having regard to the nature of the offences, the year of occurrence, a nd the attendant circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that some leniency may be shown in the matter of sentence. 16. However, having regard to the nature of the offences, the year of occurrence, a nd the attendant circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that some leniency may be shown in the matter of sentence. Further, no criminal antecedents have been pointed out against the revision petitioners. 17. Therefore, without altering the findings, the sentences imposed on the accused for the various offences are modified as follows: i) For the offence punishable under Section 143 of the IPC , the accused Nos.1 to 5 are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each. In default of payment of the fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for three days. ii) For the offence punishable under Section 147 of the IPC , the accused Nos.1 to 5 are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each. In default of payment of the fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for three days. iii) For the offence punishable under Section 452 of the IPC , the accused Nos.1 to 5 are sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each. In default of payment of the fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. iv) For the offence punishable under Section 323 r/w Section 149 of the IPC , the accused are sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court. 18. The substantive sentences shall run concurrently. Fine amount, if paid or realised, shall be given to PW2 as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. The accused shall appear before the trial court on 02.07.2026 to undergo the sentence and to pay/deposit the compensation amount. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part.