Judgment : This revision is filed under Secs.397 and 401 of Crl.P.C, is directed against the judgments rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli in Crl.A.No.342 of 1987 dated 23. 1988, confirming the judgment of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kulithaiai in C.C.No.189 of 1986, against the revision petitioner herein and another accused for an offence under Sec.326, I.P.C. and convicted the petitioner to undergo imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. The case of the prosecution as recorded by the learned trial Magistrate as well as considered by the lower appellate court in brief are extracted as follows: The revision petitioner along with another accused by name Samiappan alias Sellappan, were the agricultural coolies belonged to one Vangal village in Kulithaiai Taluk, Tiruchirapalli district, employed under one Vallaiya Gounder and doing farm work in his lands and so also P.W.1, Chella-muthu, belongs to the same village and employed under one Karumana Gounder, as a farm servant engaged in doing irrigation works in the lands of his master and that while doing so at about 3.00 p.m. on 21. 1986 while P.W.1 was irrigating the lands of Karumana Gounder, the revision petitioner and the other accused came and deviated the water from the canal leading to P.W.l’s land and took the water to their field, which was objected to and when P.W.1 again tried to deviate the canal water, the other accused, namely, Samiap^ pan pulled both the legs of P.W.1, who in turn fell in the canal and when he rose up the revision petitioner cut P.W.1 with an Aruval on his right wrist causing bleeding injuries and on the approach of P.W.2,Selvaraj, the brother of P.W.1, both the revision petitioner and the another accused ran away and that with the bleeding inju’ ries on his right wrist, P.W.1 was taken by P.W.2 to Vangal Police Station at.about 4.30 p.m. On that day he lodged a complaint to P. W.3, the write of. that station, who registered a case in Crime No.11 of 1986 against the revision petitioner and another accused for the offences under Secs.341,324 and 326, I.P.C. And sent P.W.1 to the Government Hospital, Karur for treatment and intimated the fact to the Sub Inspector of Police-P.W.5 for further investigation. that station, who registered a case in Crime No.11 of 1986 against the revision petitioner and another accused for the offences under Secs.341,324 and 326, I.P.C. And sent P.W.1 to the Government Hospital, Karur for treatment and intimated the fact to the Sub Inspector of Police-P.W.5 for further investigation. P.W.4, Dr.Indirani.attached to the Government Hospital, Karur, on receipt of the requisition given by Vangal Police had examined P.W.1 at about 7.00 p.m. on that day and found on him the following injuries; ‘“V shaped incised wound 5” x 1“bone depth on the right wrist joint. Vessels exposed bleed- -ing continuously.” and issued a Wound certificate Ex.P-2. The Doctor opined that the injury was grievous in nature. The Doctor further states during the course of her evidence, as P.W.4, that the injury was X-rayed and on the perusal of the Scophoid and Radical stylaid process it was found the bone was fractured and that X-ray number was 4945 dated 21. 1985. On the basis of the above facts P.W.4 opined that the injury found on the person of the injured was grievous. Then she admitted him asan inpatient in the hospital and treatment was given. P.W.5-Rajagopal-Sub Inspector of Police, on the registration of the case by P. W.3 took further investigation at about 4.00 p.m. on the day of occurrence he had been to the scene of occurrence and prepared the Observation Mahazar Ex.P-3 and Rough sketch Ex.P-4, heexamined P.W.2,Vadivel, Karumanan, Palanisami and others and obtained the wound certificate Ex.P-2 from the Doctor, who attended on P.W.l. P.W.5, the Sub Inspector of Police gave evidence about the fact of surrender of the revision petitioner and another accused before the Court on 2. 1986. P.W.5 after examining the Doctor-P.W.3 on 22. 1986 obtained the wound certificate and sent the final report against the accused, namely the revision petitioner and another, to the court for the offences under Secs.341 and 326, I.P.C. 3. On examining the revision petitioner and the another accused and learned trial Magistrate on the basis of the incriminating circumstances and. the evidence found against both of them had accepted the prosecuted case in toto and their complicity for the charges framed against them. On examining the revision petitioner and the another accused and learned trial Magistrate on the basis of the incriminating circumstances and. the evidence found against both of them had accepted the prosecuted case in toto and their complicity for the charges framed against them. Consequently on the appraisal and analysis of the entire oral and documentary evidence relied on by the prosecution, the learned Magistrate has found the revision petitioner and the another accused guilty for the offences under which they were charged and accordingly sentenced as stated above, namely, imposing imprisonment for one year and to pay the fine of Rs.500 against the revision petitioner and in default of which rigorous imprisonment for three months and as against the another accused imposed a fine of Rs.250 for the offence committed under Sec.341, I.P.C Aggrieved by the same the revision petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Court of Sessions, Tiruchira-palli, who on the reappraisal of the entire oral and documentary evidence confirmed the finding of the learned trial Magistrate and against which the present revision is directed as stated above. 4. I have heard Mr.S.Doraisamy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, on the point that in sustaining a conviction under Sec.326,I.P.C against the revision petitioner both the Courts below have misconceived the recorded evidence in the context that P.Ws.1 and 2 are the brothers and partisan in nature and that so much so their interested testimony was not corroborated by the medical evidence and that as such inconsistency in the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 causes every suspicion over the claim of prosecution about the overt act of the revision petitioner and the another accused and that therefore the judgment of the lower courts to be set aside"on the ground of misappre-ciation of the recorded evidence before the courts below. 5.Per contra Thiru I.Subramaniam, learned Additional Public Prosecutor countered the arguments of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner on the ground that P.W.1 is an injured person and the grievous injury caused to him by the cutting of the revision petitioner with the weapon like Aruval on his wrist causing fracture and permanent disfigurement to 50% cannot even be contemplated in the mind of P.W.l to implicate the revision petitioner falsely and that therefore the evidence of P.W.l coupled with the claim of P. W.2, may be brothers, would bare no suspicion and that on that score only the evidence of an injured witness cannot be rejected or suspected and that consequently, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contend the medical evidence let in by the prosecution in this case provides ample corroboration and supports to the claim of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with the fact that there is no iota of laches or irregularity in the investigation done in this case clinchingly establish the guilt of the accused and another beyond all reasonable doubt and that therefore the findings rendered by both the Courts below are well considered findings and no ground is available to interfere with it. 6. As regards the rival contentions above referred, I have carefully perused the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. With regard to the overt act attributed to the revision petitioner herein, the claim of P.Ws.1 and 2 are so consistent, cogent and natural and convincing. The evidence of P.W.4-Doctor, who found P.W.l at about 7.00 p.m. on the day of occurrence at Karur Government Hospital within four hours from the time of occurrence the griev-. ous injury and onthe basis of the x-rays taken, the Doctor opined that even the bone of the injured was open and fractured and the wound could have been caused by a Weapon like Aruval, and that the wound certificate recorded by the Doctor clinches the further facts that P.W.l was telling the truth about the occurrence. P.W.3 the Constable attached to the Vangal Police Station has seen P.W.l with bleeding injury along with P.W.2-his own brother at about 4.30 p.m. within 11/2 hours after the occurrence and recorded the statement from P.W.l and registered it as Crime No. 11 of 1986 and that he immediately sent P.W.1 to Karur Government Hospital with a memo. P.W.3 the Constable attached to the Vangal Police Station has seen P.W.l with bleeding injury along with P.W.2-his own brother at about 4.30 p.m. within 11/2 hours after the occurrence and recorded the statement from P.W.l and registered it as Crime No. 11 of 1986 and that he immediately sent P.W.1 to Karur Government Hospital with a memo. Accordingly P.W.l was seen by P.W.4 and got admitted in the hospital as an inpatient and put him under treatment. P.W.5-the Sub Inspector of Police took up further investigation and prepared Observation Mahazar, Rough sketch Exs.P-3 and P-4 and examined P.Ws.2 and 3 and other witnesses, obtained the wound certificate Ex.P-2 and completed the investigation and laid charge sheet and sent the final report against both the accused. Thus on a careful consideration of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 with reference to the grievous injuries found on the person of P.W.l is concerned, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the revision petitioner for an offence under Sec.326, I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt and nothing was available to reject or suspect the claim of all witnesses examined and relied on by the prosecution in so far as the guilt of the first accused is concerned. 7. As regards the overt act of the second accused though he has not come forward with a revision I am not inclined to pass any orders on the scope, but it has been rightly dealt with by the lower appellate court. 8. Thus on a careful analysis of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with the medical evidence tendered by P.W.4 and investigation done by P.Ws.3 and 5, I am of the firm view that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused, namely, the revision petitioner for an offence under Sec.326, I.P.C. With regard to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the revisi6n petitioner as well as the observation by the lower appellate Court simply because P.Ws.1 and 2 happened to be the brothers, their testimonies cannot be rejected on the ground of interestedness and partisan nature in the context of P.W.1 has been in the hospital for several days, as supported by the medical evidence with regard to the grievous injury caused to him cannot be countenanced as affecting the prosecution case. Therefore, I am unable to persuade myself to countenance any of the arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. Then it appears to be seen whether the conviction and sentence imposed by both courts below are correct for the offence made out against the revision petitioner under Sec.326, I.P.C. Having considered the circumstances that both P.W.1 and the revision petitioner happened to be the agricultural coolies and servants engaged in irrigating the canal water to their respective fields on the time and day of occurrence, both were of poor village rustic carried away to their respective masters might have been guided the extraneous circumstances of the diversion of the water from the Canal which facility is open to both parties. Therefore it can be safely inferred in the spirit of moment, namely while the canal water being taken to the field of P.W.1 has intercepted and diverted by the revision petitioner not for his own purpose but to irrigate the land of his master, which was again attempted to be deviated by P.W.1. It made the revision petitioner to indulge in violence all of a Sudden, without realising the consequences. Therefore regarding the sentence on the revision petitioner for a period of one year in my considered view is too much, At this stage it was represented that consequent to the finding of both Courts below, the revision petitioner was inside the prison altogether for a period of more than 25 days and now he is in bail. 10. I would be failing in my duty while considering the position and status of the revision petitioner alone, if not by the present condition of P.W.1 who sustained the grievous injury, who was present in court and I had the opportunity of his seeing the healed wound on his right wrist. The fingers of his right hand were not in a position to move freely as other persons and to this extent 1 am able to find, as was opined by the Doctor, though the grievous injury caused on him was completely cured, 50% of permanent disability of the wrist is persisting, namely on the right wrist. The fingers of his right hand were not in a position to move freely as other persons and to this extent 1 am able to find, as was opined by the Doctor, though the grievous injury caused on him was completely cured, 50% of permanent disability of the wrist is persisting, namely on the right wrist. Considering the age and the permanent impairment referred above on his right wrist, I deem it necessary for the ordeal and the agony and the sufferings underwent by P.W.1, he should be compensated in such a way to meet the ends of justice. 11. Thus having considered the above established circumstances and the respective arguments and contentions by the learned counsel Mr.S.Doraisamy, for the revision petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.I.Subramaniam and. as consented to by them, I hereby confirmed the findings of the lower appellate Court for an offence under Sec.326 of the I.P.C. against the revision petitioner, but with regard to the sentence I deem it necessary that the imposing of rigorous imprisonment for one year is to be set aside and modified into one of fine of Rs.3500 payable by the revision petitioner in this case, besides the period for which he was already in prison during the trial, which would more suffice to meet the ends of justice. But at the same time I am rather inclined and feel no hesitation to award the said amount of Rs.3,500 paid by the revision petitioner as fine will be paid to P. W.1 as compensation as contemplated under Sec.357, Clause (1)(b), "Crl.P.C. Pursuant to this view the learned counsel Mr.S.Doraisamy, for the revision petitioner paid the amount of Rs.3,000 to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor towards part of the fine, but requested that amount is to be directed to be deposited in any bank so as to become useful for P.W.1. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor consented for the same. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor consented for the same. Accordingly, I hereby direct the fine amount now paid in the open court to the Additional Public Prosecutor along with the fine amount of Rs.500 paid already before the trial Court altogether a sum of Rs.3,500 is directed to be deposited in fixed deposit account in the State Bank of India Branch at Vangal in Karur Taluk for a period of three years in the name of P.W.1 and on the expiry of the said period, it should be renewed for further period and P.W.1 is hereby directed to receive the interest along every month by opening a separate Saving Bank Account in so far as interest is concerned and to this effect I hereby direct the Sub Inspector of Police, Vangal, who is present in court, to carry on my directions given above and see the matter completely fulfilled. Consequent to the above findings, I hereby direct the revision petitioner is set at liberty and need not surrender before the jail authorities. With these directions the revision petition is dismissed.