Short Note : 1. It is no doubt true, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, omission of an important fact in the first information report has far reaching effects. But, that omission is attributable only to the maker of the first information report. In this case the omission of Mahadeo (P. W. 1) in the first information report (Ex. P-5) to the effect that at the time Ramdeo (the petitioner) directed a stick blow on his head he in order to save his held took his hands over his head with the result that the blow fell on his hand breaking his right index finger, would be attributable only to him. This omission in Ex. P-5 as such will not, only on this account, cast doubt on the evidence of other witnesses, namely Hariwans (P. W. 2), Vasudeo (P. W. 3) and Ku 'Gulabkali (P. W. 7), particularly when the fact is corroborated also by Dr. R.K Jain (P W. 6) and confirmed by Dr. Y. S Tiwari (P. W. 9) with the help of X-ray plate (Ex. P-10), In the face of this overwhelming evidence the conclusion was inevitable that the petitioner in causing grievous hurt to Mahadeo entailing comminuted fracture of the proximal end of the second phalaux of the right index finger had committed the offence punishable under section 325 IPC. Ramkumar Pandey v. State of M. P. AIR 1975 SC 1026 , State of Punjab v. Sohansingh and others, AIR 1974 SC 300 , referred to. Revision dismissed.