JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. — This Criminal Revision has been filed challenging the order of conviction dated 29.1.1993 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Jeypore in Sessions Case No.85 of 1991 convicting the petitioner under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000.00 (one thousand), in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months, confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Jeypore in Criminal Appeal No.70 of 1993. 2. On the basis of an FIR lodged by Laxman Paraja (P.W.7) on 23rd February, 1991, B.Singhpur P.S. Case No. 13 of 1991 was registered which was subsequently numbered as G.R. Case No.114/91 and after commitment the case was numbered as Sessions Case 361 of 1991 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Jeypore. The said case was re-numbered as Sessions case 85 of 1991 on transfer to the Assistant Sessions Judge, Jeypore before whom the petitioner faced the trial. The prosecution case, bereft of all unnecessary details, is that there was a pre-existing litigation between the family of the informant and the family of the accused-petitioner centring round the title and possession over certain land and the trees standing thereon. A civil dispute relating to that culminated in favour of the in¬formant’s family. Since then both the families were at daggers drawn. On 23rd of February, 1991, i.e. the date of occurrence, at about 7 a.m., Ballav Paraja P.W.1 (son of the informant) and four others, namely P.W.2 to 5, were taking tea in the shop of Dhanur¬jaya Gouda (P.W.6) situated in the same village. At that time the petitioner came to the spot and gave a blow by means of an axe (M.O.I) on the back side head of P.W.1 who sustained a cut bleed¬ing injury on his head. Soon after giving the blow, the petition¬er ran away from the spot leaving the axe. P.W.2 who was taking tea along with P.W.1, picked up the blood-stained axe from the spot, took the injured to his father P.W.7 and narrated before him the entire story. P.W.1 became senseless and was immediately taken to B.Singhpur Additional P.H.C. for treatment P.W.7, father of the injured P.W.1, submitted the FIR (Ext.1) at Raniguda Outpost describing the entire episode. P.W.2 who was taking tea along with P.W.1, picked up the blood-stained axe from the spot, took the injured to his father P.W.7 and narrated before him the entire story. P.W.1 became senseless and was immediately taken to B.Singhpur Additional P.H.C. for treatment P.W.7, father of the injured P.W.1, submitted the FIR (Ext.1) at Raniguda Outpost describing the entire episode. P.W.11 on the basis of the FIR (Ext.1) made a Station Diary Entry and forwarded the FIR for registration of the case at B.Singhpur P.S. and carried on inves¬tigation. On completion of investigation P.W.11 submitted charge sheet against the petitioner for commission of an offence under Section 307 IPC. 3. To substantiate its case, prosecution examined eleven witnesses, out of whom P.W.1 was the injured, P.Ws 2 to 5 were the eye-witnesses, who were present at the spot and were taking tea along with P.W.1, P.W.6 was the tea-stall owner, P.W.7 was the father of the injured who lodged the FIR, P.W.8 was a co-villager, P.W.9 was a witness to seizure, P.W.10 was the doctor who had examined the injured soon after the occurrence and P.W.11, as stated earlier, was the investigating officer. Apart from oral evidence, prosecution also exhibited seven documents including the FIR, seizure-list, report of the doctor, chemical examination report, etc. The axe with which the petitioner was alleged to have assaulted the injured P.W.1 was marked as M.O.I. 4. The plea of the accused-petitioner was a denial. He also take the plea that the case had been falsely initiated against him due to previous enmity. The defence examined D.W.1 in support of its plea. 5. The medical report Ext.5 issued by the doctor P.W.10 reveals that he found an incised wound of the size 4" x 1" depth up to brain matter on the parieto-occipital region of the head of P.W.1. The doctor P.W.10 categorically deposed that the brain matter was coming out from the injury side and that the injury had been caused by a sharp cutting weapon within six to twelve hours proceeding his examination. The doctor also deposed that in ordinary course the injury was sufficient to cause death. 6. The doctor P.W.10 categorically deposed that the brain matter was coming out from the injury side and that the injury had been caused by a sharp cutting weapon within six to twelve hours proceeding his examination. The doctor also deposed that in ordinary course the injury was sufficient to cause death. 6. The statements of P.Ws.1 to 5 do not leave any doubt that on Saturday, that was 23rd of February, 1991, the petitioner assaulted the injured P.W.1 at about 7 a.m. when the latter along with the said witnesses was taking tea in the tea-stall of P.W.6. The axe that was used as the weapon of offence was also seized and marked M.O.I. On chemical examination the axe M.O.I. was also found to have contained extensive stains of human blood. The doctor P.W.10 also categorically stated that the injury was possible by an assault with M.O.I. After going through the evi¬dence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court found the petitioner guilty under Section 307 IPC and convicted and sen¬tenced him as stated above. The appellate Court who heard the appeal also meticulously dealt with the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, and by a well-reasoned judgment confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner forcefully submitted that the Courts below did not properly appreciate the evidence, inasmuch as the oral evidence regarding the injury sustained by P.W.1 and the conduct of P.W.1 after he was allegedly assaulted by the petitioner are not believable. It was submitted that though P.W.2 stated in Court that he carried the injured P.W.1 ti his father P. W. 7, there are some evidence to show that P.W. 1 after being allegedly injured ran to his father. Such discrepancy was not considered by the Courts below. It was also submitted that the Courts below did not keep in mind that there was prior enmity between the parties and that a false case had been foisted against the petitioner. 8. At the other hand, learned counsel for the State stren¬uously took me through the evidence and submitted that the Court below had duly considered all the materials available on record and the judgments impugned were just and proper. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for both sides, I once again went through the evidence, both oral and documentary. 8. At the other hand, learned counsel for the State stren¬uously took me through the evidence and submitted that the Court below had duly considered all the materials available on record and the judgments impugned were just and proper. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for both sides, I once again went through the evidence, both oral and documentary. That the injured P.W.1 sustained a grievous injury is very much clear and apparent from the report of the doctor (Ext.5) vis-a-vis his deposition in Court. P.Ws 2 to 5 who were taking tea with the injured and P.W.6, the tea-stall owner, were the eye-witness¬es to the occurrence and they have clearly stated that the peti¬tioner surreptitiously approached the shop all of a sudden and dealt a blow by means of an axe on the head of P.W.1. Though all these witnesses were cross-examined at length, no substantial variation has been noticed in their statements. The defence has totally failed to elicit any contradiction in their statements, worth the name, so as to raise any suspicion. Law is well settled that previous enmity is a double-edged weapon. Thus the defence of the petitioner that due to previous enmity the case had been falsely foisted against him cannot be accepted. It is the con¬sistent case of the prosecution that being enraged by the deci¬sion of the Civil Court which went in favour of the family of the informant, the petitioner took the revenge and committed the alleged act. 10. After going through the entire evidence, I do not find any reason to differ from the finding of the trial Court which was confirmed by the appellate Court. No apparent error on the face of the record could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He also totally failed to throw any suspi¬cion, though he meticulously placed the entire evidence on re¬cord. I am thus convinced that the findings of the Courts below are just and proper and there is absolutely no error in the judgments warranting interference in revision. 11. Accordingly, I find no merit in the revision and dis¬miss it. Revision dismissed.