JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been directed against the order dated 14th October. 1992, passed by the Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act). Addl. Sessions Judge. Jodhpur. Shri Ramesh Sharma. in Cr Appeal No. 249/89. whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was partly allowed and conviction of the petitioner for offence under Section 326 and Section 447 of the IPC read with Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act was sustained by the learned Special Judge with modification in the sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner by the trial Court, from two years simple imprisonment to 9 months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- under. Section 326 IPC. Conviction and sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner by the trial Court i.e. one month's simple imprisonment under Section 447 of the IPC and six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act was upheld in appeal. Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the Appellate Court on 14-10.-1992, the accused-petitioner has filed the revision petition in this Court, as indicated above. 2. The facts giving rise to the filing in this revision petition, briefly stated, are that on 16th of December, 1985 at about 9.15 p.m. the complainant/injured Om Prakash son of Ambalal, resident of Pipad village informed the local police by making an oral report of the occurrence to the effect that the accused petitioner came to the shop premises of the complainant and suddenly pounced upon the complainant with a knife inflicting grievous injury on his left foot as a consequence of which serious injury was caused to the complainant. Being not satisfied with this, the accused-petitioner made another attempt on the- life of the complainant which was not successful as the said attempt was warded of by the complainant This occurrence was witnessed by PWs. Ram Chandra, Amrat Lal and Roopram Meghwal. On the basis of this report the police registered a case vide FIR No. 134/85 against the accused-petitioner for offence under Section 326/447 IPC and forwarded the case to the area Magistrate. The trial Court took cognisance of the complaint and recorded the statements of the aforesaid witnesses and also recorded the statement of Dr Dinesh Purohit in respect of injury inflicted to the injured. The weapon of offence, i.e. the knife was also recovered by the police at the instance of the accused. 3. The trial Court took cognisance of the complaint and recorded the statements of the aforesaid witnesses and also recorded the statement of Dr Dinesh Purohit in respect of injury inflicted to the injured. The weapon of offence, i.e. the knife was also recovered by the police at the instance of the accused. 3. The learned Magistrate on the basis of the evidence produced before the Court sentenced the accused-petitioner to two years simple imprisonment for offence under Section 326 of the IPC and a fine of Rs. 100/- in default thereof to undergo further one months' simple imprisonment and u/S. 447 of the IPC one months simple imprisonment and u/S. 27 of the Indian Arms Act six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine the accused-petitioner was directed to undergo one month's simple imprisonment. 4. The accused was arrested on 20th December, 1985 and was released on bail on 26th January, 1986. Thus he had remained in jail for a period of 35 days as under-trial. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order of the learned Magistrate the accused-petitioner preferred an appeal before the Special Judge, Jodhpur on 22nd June, 1988 wherein his sentence was suspended. The petitioner was re-arrested on 26th August, 1992. On appeal, the sentence was modified as indicated above, by the Appellate Court to 9 month's simple imprisonment for offence under Sec. 326 of the IPC instead of two years simple imprisonment as earlier awarded by the learned trial Court and a fine of Rs. 100/-, six months simple imprisonment for offence u/S. 27 of the Indian Arms Act and a fine of Rs. 100/-, one months' simple imprisonment of offence under Section 447 of the IPC. Sentences were directed to run concurrently. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Appellate Court, the present revision petition has been preferred before this Court on 20th November, 1992. 6. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the case file and the relevant documents placed on the record. 7. In the grounds of revision the accused-petitioner has contended that PWs. Ram Chandra, Amratlal and Roopmal Meghwal are not independent witnesses, since they were related to the complainant and, therefore, are interested witnesses. 6. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the case file and the relevant documents placed on the record. 7. In the grounds of revision the accused-petitioner has contended that PWs. Ram Chandra, Amratlal and Roopmal Meghwal are not independent witnesses, since they were related to the complainant and, therefore, are interested witnesses. I am not impressed by this contention since the law has been well settled by the Apex Court of the country that merely because of some witnesses happen to be related to the complainant, is no ground for disbelieving and discarding their testimony. From the testimony of the said witnesses, as recorded by the learned trial Court and also from the perusal of their evidence, it is clearly apparent that it was the petitioner who had caused grievous injury on the person of the complainant/injured Om Prakash at the shop premises of the latter. This version of the witness stands fully corroborated by the testimony of PW. 10. Dr. Dinesh Purohit, who had deposed in evidence before the learned trial Court that the injuries inflicted by the accused on the complainant could have proved dangerous to his life if timely medical aid was not rendered to" the complainant. 8. From the perusal of the documents, statements of the witnesses and the medical evidence, I am of the considered opinion that the Appellate Court has been taken a lenient view of the matter and the maximum sentence which could be awarded to the accused for offence under Section 326 IPC is life imprisonment or 10 year's rigorous imprisonment and fine. Notwithstanding the gravity of the offences, the Appellate Court took lenient view of the matter and modified the sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner by the trial Court as aforesaid It will be pertinent to mention here that the medical evidence recorded by the trial Court of Dr. Dinesh Purohit, PW. 10, Medical Officer In-charge, Pipad. with regard to the nature of the injury, in his examination-in-chief recorded before the trial Court the doctor has opined as under:- "1. Punctured wound on middle of left thigh, the wound of entrance is 3 cm x 1 cm obliquely on lateral aspect of thigh having clear cut well defined and smooth and inverted edges. 2. with regard to the nature of the injury, in his examination-in-chief recorded before the trial Court the doctor has opined as under:- "1. Punctured wound on middle of left thigh, the wound of entrance is 3 cm x 1 cm obliquely on lateral aspect of thigh having clear cut well defined and smooth and inverted edges. 2. Excite is 21/2 cm x 1 cm obliquely on medical aspect of thigh having everted edges which are well defined smooth and clear cut. The distance between two wounds is 13 cms. from anterior side a probe can be passed easily through the wound." 9. The said doctor in his cross-examination has specifically stated that in view of the grievous injury suffered by the complainant he had bled profusely and the said injury could have proved dangerous to life if timely medical aid was not rendered to the injured. Notwithstanding these observations, this Court is surprised to see that this very doctor in his cross-examination has further deposed that:- " ukseZy os esa Hkh dangerous to life ugha Fkh blhfy;s eSaus Ex p.8 esa ;g vafdr ugha fd;kA " meaning thereby that even in the normal circumstances, it was not dangerous to life and hence he had not so recorded in injury report Ex. P. 8. This is self-contradictory statement of the doctor in as much as while on the one hand the said doctor has observed that as a result of grievous injury suffered by the injured he had bled profusely and the injury could have been proved fatal to his life if timely medical aid was not rendered but notwithstanding this fact the same doctor has, for the reasons best known to him, failed to mention this fact as "injury dangerous to life" in his report Ex. P. 8. But for this, medical report which apparently appears to be tainted, this Court would have had no difficulty in awarding the maximum of 10 years imprisonment as stipulated for offence under Section 326 of the IPC. I am thus of the view that no interference is called for with the judgment of the learned Appellate Court and the sentence awarded to the petitioner as modified by the Appellate Court deserves to be maintained. 10. I am thus of the view that no interference is called for with the judgment of the learned Appellate Court and the sentence awarded to the petitioner as modified by the Appellate Court deserves to be maintained. 10. In this respect, I would like to observe that medical officers should be very careful in future in dealing with such cases which are fool-proof cases for sustaining the conviction of the accused so that the prosecution has no difficulty in presenting their cases before the trial Court as Has happened in this case. Notwithstanding the fact that the guilt of the accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt but the maximum sentence stipulated under the relevant provisions of the IPC could not be awarded to the accused because of the aforesaid tainted medical report. I have noticed this fact not only in this case but in several other matters that the medical reports are not free from doubt. It is needless to observe that the medical profession is a very noble profession and the reports of the doctors should be free from doubts and should dispel all suspicious and should withstand the successful test of Judicial scrutiny. 11. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner as modified by the Appellate Court deserves to be maintained and is hereby confirmed. 12. This revision petition has no force and is dismissed accordingly. 13. Before parting with this case, I would like to mention that for future guidance, the medical officers should be very vigilant and careful in dealing with the medical examinations of the victims and the medical reports rendered by them should stand the test of judicial scrutiny and their opinion recorded in the medical reports should be above-board and free from all doubts, since they would facilitate the task of the parties when the cases are presented before the concerned Courts. Copy of this order may be sent to the Director, Medical and Health Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur for future compliance.Petition dismissed. *******