S. C. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) TWO out of the three accused persons have approached this Court to exercise revisional power in order to get rid of the conviction and substantive sentence and fine imposed on them on a finding of having committed an offence under S. 326/34, I. P. C. ( 2 ) CASE of the prosecution as disclosed in the First Information Report lodged by P. W. 2 at Nayagarh Police Station on 6-11-1978 at 5. 45 p. m. is that his father (P. W. 2), the injured having declined to give in marriage of Golap, sister of the informant to Duryodhan (petitioner No. 1) and having got her married elsewhere Duryodhan was threatening to kill' P. W. 2. The other petitioner and another accused were supporting Duryodhan. On 5-11-1978 at about 10. 00 p. m. in the night when P. W. 2 came out of the house to answer the call of nature, the three accused persons, who were hiding near the cow-shed of P. W. 2 rushed towards him and Duryodhan gave a blow with Farsa (a sharp cutting dangerous weapon) with aid of the light from lantern held by P. W. 1, the accused persons could be identified. The delay was explained by stating that after arranging transport of the injured to Nayagarh hospital since the village is at a long distance, the First Information Report was lodged on the next day. ( 3 ) BOTH the courts found on appreciation of evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2, the eye- witnesses, who are the father and son that Duryodhan gave the Farsa blow in company with the other two accused persons. There is not much force in the submission of Mr. Misra to disbelieve these two witnesses. ( 4 ) MR. D. S. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the prosecution case is not acceptable since all material links have not been proved. He submitted that the lantern which was carried in the night has not been seized. Equally, X-Ray report which would have revealed actual injury has not been proved in this case. Mr. Misra submitted that in view of the previous enmity between the accused and the informant's family, a doubt legitimately comes if the accused persons have assaulted P. W. 1 as alleged. Once the evidence of P. Ws. Equally, X-Ray report which would have revealed actual injury has not been proved in this case. Mr. Misra submitted that in view of the previous enmity between the accused and the informant's family, a doubt legitimately comes if the accused persons have assaulted P. W. 1 as alleged. Once the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 are accepted, the occurrence is well proved. The defects in investigation would only be material for considering the nature and gravity of the offence. ( 5 ) MR. Misra submitted that the offence in the present case cannot be said to be one under S. 326, I. P. C. He submitted that accepting the oral evidence of Doctor, there is no other evidence with regard to the nature of the injuries. In the absence of direct evidence with regard to the injury sustained, the opinion of the Doctor which is uncorroborated should be considered with care specially when P. W. 1 has not explained why the injured was not taken to Badapandusara Primary Health Centre which falls on the way to Nayagarh. Mr. Misra submitted that P. W. 1 stated that the information was lodged in the morning of 6-11-1978. FIR discloses that it was recorded at 5. 45 P. M. These circumstances coupled with the defects in investigation as pointed out by Mr. Misra leads to an adverse inference with regard to the nature of injury. Prosecution would not have hesitated to produce the X-ray plate since P. W. 8 has stated on the basis of the report that the bone was cut into two pieces. Bed head ticket in respect of P. W. 2 would have been produced to prove the duration of the hospitalisation of the injured to be a circumstance to prove the injury to be circumstantial, oral evidence in regard to the nature of injury is not acceptable in this case. Witnesses may lie but documents would not. No explanation has been given why the direct documentary evidence has not been produced in the present case. ( 6 ) AS a common man, normally, I would have accepted that attack on P. W. 1 by means of a pharsa which is a sharp cutting dangerous wound of 5" X 3 on the right humorus resulted in fracture of the bone which would be a grievous hurt. ( 6 ) AS a common man, normally, I would have accepted that attack on P. W. 1 by means of a pharsa which is a sharp cutting dangerous wound of 5" X 3 on the right humorus resulted in fracture of the bone which would be a grievous hurt. Even at the revisional stage, I would have called for the X-Ray report and the bed head ticket to satisfy myself that the impression of a common man is also corroborated by documentary evidence. However, in the meantime, almost ten years have passed from the date of occurrence. It is not known if those documents would be available to be produced in Court. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in delaying the disposal of the case. After accepting the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 that Duryodhan assaulted P. W. 2 with pharsa which is a dangerous weapon causing bleeding injury, there is no doubt that Duryodhan caused hurt by means of a dangerous weapon in criminal association with the other two accused persons. Prosecution having failed to prove that the hurt was grievous, I convert the conviction to one under S. 324, I. P. C. ( 7 ) EVIDENCE on record that the petitioners have been in custody for sometime at the time of arrest as well as after the affirmation of their conviction by the appellate court. With passage of time the hospitality between the parties must have receded to background. In such circumstances, petitioners should not suffer substantive sentence any further which would be retributive. Accordingly, I reduce the substantive sentence to the period already undergone. ( 8 ) THERE is no doubt that P. W. 2, the injured and P. W. 1 have suffered on account of the injury caused. Having accepted that accused No. 1 with other two accused persons committed the offence being the author of the injury. I am satisfied that the fine amount should be heavy to compensate the injured. In that view of the matter, the petitioners are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- (five hundred) each. The entire amount shall be paid as compensation to the injured. In default to pay the fine amounts, petitioner shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. ( 9 ) IN the result, the Criminal Revision is allowed in part. Revision allowed in part. .