Short Note : 1. The prosecution case, briefly stated at the trial was that on the night intervening 2nd and 3rd June 1974 while Ramlal PW 2 was sleeping in the ‘Angan' outside the house in village Kharkheda, the applicant came there armed with a Lathi with an iron ring and with that weapon gave a severe blow on his leg due to which he was badly injured to such an extent that the bone was cut and exposed. This incident was witnessed by his mother Fattibai. The FIR Ex.P-2 was lodged by Ramlal at police Station Garoth on 3rd morning at 9:15 a.m. in which while describing the incident has named the applicant as his assailant. PW.1 Dr. S.S. Saraff examined Ramlal the same day and as per his report Ex. P-1 found incised wound 6" X 1" X ½” on the left leg in middle third obliquely. Tibia bone is cut - completely in the direction of the wound, bleeding. In his Opinion, it was a grievous Injury caused by sharp edged weapon within 24 hours. On these facts the applicant was prosecuted and the trial ended in his conviction, which was maintained by the lower appellate Court. Held : Though no X-ray has been placed on record to prove the nature of injury still from the evidence of Dr. Saraff PW1 who examined injured Ramlal it has been clearly established that due to the injury the bone was cut and could be distinctly seen in that position and there appears no reason to doubt his testimony. Though it would have been better had the patient been X-rayed. Therefore the grievous injury has been proved by the testimony of Dr. Saraff. 2. Where the two Courts below have consistently held on consideration and appreciation of evidence that it was the applicant who assaulted Ramlal, there is nothing for this Court to hold otherwise. I am therefore not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that on a fair assessment of the evidence, he is entitled atleast to the benefit of doubt. In these, circumstances, I do not find any ground to differ from the conclusion reached by the lower Courts regarding the guilt of the applicant. However, in my opinion the present case would be covered by the provisions of section 325 IPC. Revision partly allowed.