K. L. ISSRANI, J. ( 1 ) THE present revision petition has been filed against the judgment and order of the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur passed in Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1993 arising out of the judgment and order dated 3 1. 1. 1993 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Chhatrapur in S. C. No. 5/1991 maintaining the conviction of the appellant under section 324 I. P. C. instead of section 307 I. P. C. and reducing the sentence to one year R. I. instead of three years R. I. and fine of Rs. 1000/- as held by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Chhatrapur. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution, the prosecution case in brief, is that on 29. 9. 1989 at about 4. 30 P. M. Kishore Jena and Linga Mali were proceeding on a cycle from village Huma to Huma weekly market. At that time, accused came from their backside and gave a blow with his sword to Linga Mali on his head and returned towards Huma. Kishore Jena and Linga Mali got down from their cycle and took rest for some time and then returned to village Huma. At the house of Sarpanch, Raghunath Sahu, Harihar Malik, the father of Linga Mali saw the accused armed with a sword. While brandishing the sword the accused was shouting that his first attempt to kill Linga Mali though failed, but he will kill Linga Mali if he will find him for the second time. While he was so shouting, Linga Mali and Kishore Jena arrived there an at that time accused made another attempt to Linga Mali to give the second blow by the sword. The sword was snatched away from him by Raghunath Sahu. Thereafter, the accused escaped. Due to the head injury Linga Mali while being taken to Huma hospital, the accused again came with another sword giving out to take away the life of Linga but due to presence of witnesses he fled away on his cycle. Injured Lingaraj Mali was admitted to the hospital and Harihar Mali lodged written report at Huma Out-post. During investigation the injury report was received the bloodstained cloth of injured and the sword snatched away by Raghunath Sahu were seized and thereafter charge-sheet was submitted against the accused under section 307 of Indian Penal Code to stand his trial. Injured Lingaraj Mali was admitted to the hospital and Harihar Mali lodged written report at Huma Out-post. During investigation the injury report was received the bloodstained cloth of injured and the sword snatched away by Raghunath Sahu were seized and thereafter charge-sheet was submitted against the accused under section 307 of Indian Penal Code to stand his trial. Ten witnesses were examined by the prosecution and basing on the evidence of the injured his father, Harihar Mali and independent witnesses like Raghunath Sahu, Kishore Chandra Jena, which was corroborated by the medical evidence of the doctor Bibekananda Sadangi, the learned trial court convicted the accused and sentenced him as stated above. ( 3 ) THE defence plea of the accused is one of complete denial of the charge and he further pleaded that the case has been foisted due to previous enmity for the incident which took place before two months prior to this occurrence in which Lingaraj assaulted him and caused fracture to his hand. Two defence witnesses were examined in support of the defence plea. ( 4 ) THE submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the injured, P. W. 7 was not examined by the police and his statement under section 161 Cr. P. C. was not recorded. Therefore he had no chance to contradict him. In such case, his statement should be ignored. For this he relied on the principles laid down in (Ram Lakhan Singh and others v. The State of Uttar Pradesh) and also (Maga Ram Rajak and others v. State of Bihar ). He further submits that in the event of exclusion of the evidence of P. W. 7, the sole evidence of P. W. 2 cannot be relied. His other submission is that no bloodstain was found on the sword. So it cannot be said that the injury was caused by the sword. His last submission is that the sentence be altered to that of fine. ( 5 ) THE learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State supports the findings arrived at by both the courts below. ( 6 ) THE findings arrived at by both the courts below are findings of facts. The mere fact that P. W. 7 was not examined under section 161 Cr. P. C. but he is the person injured. He was named in the F. I. R. and also in the charge sheet. ( 6 ) THE findings arrived at by both the courts below are findings of facts. The mere fact that P. W. 7 was not examined under section 161 Cr. P. C. but he is the person injured. He was named in the F. I. R. and also in the charge sheet. His statement could not be recorded by the 1. 0. because according to him he was unconscious when he visited the house. Though this fact is disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but this cannot be gone into at this stage. At least P. W. 7 being the known witness was named in the charge sheet. As held in A. I. R. 1977 S. C. 1936 (supra) itself, it cannot be said that his statement is not reliable. The omission to record the statement is curable unless any prejudice is shown by the petitioner. Here the petitioner is not in any way prejudiced except the fact that according to him he could not get the change of contradicting his statement. The fact that he has not named any other else except the petitioner the person responsible for giving the injury there is hardly any chance of contradiction. The accused is the sole petitioner only. Even if the statement of P. W. 7 is ignored, the statement of P. W. 2s sufficient. P. W. 2 is statement supported with the statement of the doctor is sufficient to hold the petitioner guilty of the offence. Concurrent findings of facts arrived at by both the courts below that it was the petitioner who inflicted sword injuries on P. W. 7 cannot be said to be perverse. In view of this, no interference in this revision petition is called for. No interference is also called for so far as the punishment is concerned because the lower appellate court has already taken the lenient view and altered the sentence under section 307 I. P. C. and fine of Rs. 1000/- to that of R. I. for one year under section 324 I. P. C. only. There being no substance in the revision petition, it is accordingly dismissed. Revision dismissed.