JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 25-3-1980 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dausa, Camp at Jaipur, in Criminal Appeal No. 85/79, by which he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the conviction and sentences passed by the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Kotputli. Feeling aggrieved by this order of the Addl. Sessions Judge, the present petition has been filed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 24-4-75 at about 10 P.M. Shri Arjun Lai resident of Kotputli had lodged a report at P.S. Kotputli. In that report it was alleged that on 24-4-1975, at 9-30 A.M. the informant Arjunlal Nandlal and Ratanlal were sitting in the shop of Hansraj. It was further alleged that Hanuman Prasad entered the shop of Hansraj armed with a nsked sword in his hand and asked him to leave the mohalia, otherwise it will not be good for him and he hurled abuses at him. On this Hansraj objected. Thereupon Hanuman Prasad attacked with sword and inflicted svyord blows on the head, band and on the back of Hansraj. It was further alleged in the report that all the above mentioned three persons tried of intervene on account of which Arjunlal also sustained injury. On account of cry, number of persons assembled there. Shri Radhay Shyam, Prahlad and the wife of Prahald also reached on the place of occurrence. Hansraj injured was removed to the hospital. 3. On the basis of the said report the police registered a case under sections 452 and 323, IPC and started investigation. Hansraj was medically examined by Shri Raghuvir Singh Gaur, Medical Officer, Kotputli on 24-4-75 at 4-30 A.M. who found five injuries on the person of Hansraj. Four of them were incised wounds and injuries 1, 2 and 3 were mentioned as grievous caused with sharp object. Injury No. 5 was mentioned as lacerated wound. The said doctor also examined Shri Arjunlal on the same day and prepared injury report Ex. P.8. The doctor mentioned 3 injuries on the person of injured Arjunlal and two of them were mentioned to be incised wounds and injury No. 1 was mentioned as scratch. The accused-petitioner was arrested and on the information of the accused while in custody a sword was recovered at the instance of the accused petitioner on 6-4-1975. P.8. The doctor mentioned 3 injuries on the person of injured Arjunlal and two of them were mentioned to be incised wounds and injury No. 1 was mentioned as scratch. The accused-petitioner was arrested and on the information of the accused while in custody a sword was recovered at the instance of the accused petitioner on 6-4-1975. After completion of the investigation a challan was field under Section 326, 324 and 452, IPC against the accused petitioner in the Court of Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Kotputli. The learned Magistrate charged the accused petitioner for offence under sections 326 and 324, IPC. The petitioner denied the charges and claimed to be tired. The prosecution examined as may as 9 witnesses in support of its case. The accused petitioner was examined u/s 313, Cr. P.C. who denied the allegation levelled against him by the prosecution witnesses. The accuse petitioner did not produce any witness in defence. 4. The accused petitioner was found guilty and he was convicted and sentenced by the Judicial Magistrate, as aforesaid, and the appeal preferred by him was also dismissed. 5. None appeared on behalf of the accused petitioner, but at the time when the order was going to be dictated, the learned counsel for the petitioner appeared, who was heard. 6. I have also heard the learned P.P. and perused the record. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following grounds:- (1) That there is inordinate delay in lodging the report and it was a deliberate delay in order to implicate the petitioner falsely in this case, and no explanation has been given for the delay. (2) That as per the FIR only 3 blows were inflicted on Hansraj by the accused, but as per injury report (Ex.P.7) Hansraj received 5 injuries. Further, there is no such allegation that Hansraj was also given a blow with blunt object, but in the injury report an injury by blunt object was also mentioned. These circumstances are sufficient to disbelieve the prosecution version. (3) That the courts below have erred in holding the injuries 1, 2 and 3 on the person of Hansraj as grievous, though there was no fracture of any bone, and as such no injury can be said to be grievous in nature. These circumstances are sufficient to disbelieve the prosecution version. (3) That the courts below have erred in holding the injuries 1, 2 and 3 on the person of Hansraj as grievous, though there was no fracture of any bone, and as such no injury can be said to be grievous in nature. (4) That the doctor was not in a position to detect the fracture of any bone without the help of X-ray, and as such injuries Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of Exs. P 7 cannot be mentioned as grievous. (5) That the independent witness named in the FIR has not been produced by the prosecution. (6) That there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, which were-looked by the sub-ordinate courts. 8. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the delay has been explained in this case. The injured was taken and then admitted in the hospital, and the report was lodged at about 5 P.M. It has further contended by the learned P.P. that though many persons were present on the spot, but only few of them were produced by the prosecution, and it is not necessary for the prosecution to produce all the witnesses present on the spot. The production of injured persons only is sufficient and the prosecution has fully established its case. In the injury report (Ex P7), injuries Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are shown as grievous, and reasons for the same are given in the injury report. The witnesses for the prosecution have given a consistent statement against the accused-petitioner and both the courts below have fully appreciated their evidence and found the accused guilty. The learned P.P. further contended that the concurrent finding of fact cannot be challenged by way of revision. 9. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 10. This is correct to say that any court while sitting in revision will not go into the merits of the case or reappreciate the evidence. Only in exceptional cases, where the court finds any defect in the procedure or manifest error on the point of law and fact, or where there is a flagrant miscarriage of justice, this court can interfere in the findings of the subordinate courts. 11. Only in exceptional cases, where the court finds any defect in the procedure or manifest error on the point of law and fact, or where there is a flagrant miscarriage of justice, this court can interfere in the findings of the subordinate courts. 11. In the instant case, the decision taken by the subordinate courts on the facts alleged by the prosecution has been challenged by the accused-petitioner. No illegality or error apparent on the face of record has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner. 12. In this case, four eye witnesses were produced by the prosecution, and their statements are corroborated by the doctor Shri Raghuvir Singh Gaur. In injury cases, if the testimony of the injured is corroborated by the medical evidence, that too is sufficient to base the conviction of an accused person. 13. There is nothing to show that the witnesses are interested. It has been argued that PW 2 Ratanlal and PW 9 none are interested witnesses due to the reason that they used to work on the shop of Hansraj, and as such they are the servants of Hansraj. But the statements of Hansraj and of PW 2 Ratanlal and PW 9 Nandlal are corroborated by the statement of Arjunlal (PW 3), who is an independent witness and came to take his clothes at the shop of Hansraj. PW 3 Arjun has stated that at the time of assault by the accused on Hansraj, he intervened and on this the accused also attacked him and he sustained injuries, which are proved by the doctor. Hence the statements of eye witnesses in this case have rightly been believed by the subordinate courts. 14. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in this case it has not been proved that the injuries on the person of Hansraj are grievous in nature. Only that injury can be termed as grievous where the bone is out through and through, or that the crack must extend from the outer to the interior surface. In this case, the doctor has opined that the injuries Nos. 1 and 2 were grievous in nature because the bone was cut. In view of the decision taken in the case Horilal and Anr. v. The State of U.P. 1970 Cr. LJ. 1665. , injuries Nos. In this case, the doctor has opined that the injuries Nos. 1 and 2 were grievous in nature because the bone was cut. In view of the decision taken in the case Horilal and Anr. v. The State of U.P. 1970 Cr. LJ. 1665. , injuries Nos. I and 2 of Hansraj were rightly held as grievous by the subordinate courts where in the cases referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner are also discussed. 15. The other points taken in the memo of revision were also considered by the courts below and discussed in details, and I do not find any illegality in the findings arrived at by the courts below. I do not think it proper to repeat the same finding in my order while writing some other reasons. A concurrent finding cannot be reversed on the basis of change of | opinion. The courts below have given their reasons in not granting the benefit of probation to the petitioner and the same are justified. 16. I do not find any force in this revision petition. Hence, it is dismissed. The trial Court is directed to issue uon-bailable warrant for the arrest of the accused-petitioner in order to serve out the sentence awarded to him.Revision dismissed. *******