ORAL JUDGMENT : 1) The State, being aggrieved by the order of inadequate sentence recorded by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Degloor, for the offence under Section 326 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, has come in the appeal. 2) The accused/Revision Petitioners by filing a Revision have challenged the judgment and order dated 27.9.2006 in Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 1994 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli, who confirmed the judgment and order of J.M.F.C. in Regular Trial No.177/1992. By the judgment of the J.M.F.C., the accused/original accused no.2 - Mallikarjun; accused no.5 - Laxman and accused no.10 - Shivraj, were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with 34 of IPC and were directed to suffer R.I. for one year each and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default, to further undergo R.I. for one year. By the said judgment, the learned J.M.F.C. has acquitted the other accused. It is the matter of record that said acquittal of other accused was also subjected to Criminal Appeal No. 396/1994, as raised by the State and by judgment dated 27.10.2005, this Court rejected the Criminal Appeal No. 396/1994. 3) On hearing both the sides, though learned Sr.Counsel for the accused elaborately read the evidence of eye-witnesses and the injured, at one stage, he was reminded that in a revision, the scope for appreciation is very limited and there are concurrent findings of two courts below against the accused, he should restrict his submissions to the law point only. The position of law is clear. The court while sitting in revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. should not reappreciate the evidence and the findings of fact recorded by the two courts below. However, these finding can only be interfered, if such findings are apparently perverse or based on no evidence or suffer from any other legal injury and error of law. With this aspect keeping in mind, the submissions of both the sides are considered. However, these finding can only be interfered, if such findings are apparently perverse or based on no evidence or suffer from any other legal injury and error of law. With this aspect keeping in mind, the submissions of both the sides are considered. 4) The learned A.P.P., since wanted enhancement of the sentence recorded by the J.M.F.C., took me to the entire evidence and claimed that, for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC, there being a grievous hurt as defined under the statute, which grievous hurt is medically established by evidence of the medical officer (P.W.3), the learned J.M.F.C. should have recorded the sentence more than one year, considering the gravity of the matter. 5) The learned Sr.Counsel for the accused criticized the F.I.R. of the complainant (P.W.1) claiming that it is silent about the names of the accused and in the evidence he says that Sangram came to the house, while in the F.I.R. he states that while he was at home, employees working in field came. The criticism to the evidence of P.W.1 basically is not to be considered as P.W.1 is not an eye-witness to the incident. Whatever report he has given to the police is based on the communication received from his employees, who informed that his brother Hanmant was brutally assaulted and consequently, he rushed to police to put the investigation in motion. In this scenario of the matter, Exhibit-65 or evidence of P.W.1 will have to be read. It cannot be said there are omissions and or contradictions in his evidence. 6) On the incident, there are following witnesses : P.W.4 - Hanmantrao Vithalrao Patil; P.W.5 - Sangram Malhari Waghmare; P.W.8 - Sangram Hullaji Waghmare. 7) On assessing evidence of these witnesses, coupled with complainant’s evidence, I find that barring few contradictions about the distance to be 50 ft. or less or about who rushed first, there is no variance in their evidence to claim that they are brought up witnesses or that they are interested to falsely implicate the accused. It is pertinent to note that the learned Judge, considering the evidence of the witnesses, showing specific role to accused no.2 - Mallikarjun with an axe; accused no. 5 - Laxman with Katti; and accused no.10 - Shivraj with an axe, and brutally assaulting injured P.W.4, has come to the conclusion about the guilt against the accused. It is pertinent to note that the learned Judge, considering the evidence of the witnesses, showing specific role to accused no.2 - Mallikarjun with an axe; accused no. 5 - Laxman with Katti; and accused no.10 - Shivraj with an axe, and brutally assaulting injured P.W.4, has come to the conclusion about the guilt against the accused. 8) P.W.4 - Hanmantrao, as could be seen from the medical evidence of P.W.3 - Dr.Jananrdhan Iranna Bhume and P.W.16 -Dr.N.Parvati, had suffered as many as 15 injuries. Out of them, injury nos. 1 and 2 were grievous in nature, as these injuries were fractures at lower part of left finger bone (left elbow posterity) - 6 x 1 x 4 cms. with sharp edge and bleeding profusely while injury no.2 was compound fracture on right leg medially fracture of right tibia and fibula bone - 4 x 1 x 6 cms. The wound was fresh and having sharp edge and it was bleeding profusely. The medical officer (P.W.3) noticed other incise wounds referred in his evidence and medical certificate at Exhibit-75, which are on other part of body of P.W.4 - Hanumantrao. He has identified Hanmantrao, apart from identifying and confirming the certificate issued at Exh. 75 in relation to injuries noticed by him on examination of injured on 30.07.1992; The eye-witnesses other than Hanmantrao have also identified the accused persons and the respective weapons including apparels which were on the person of the accused. The claim that the eye-witnesses were in another field is again difficult to accept as it is brought in evidence that the eye-witnesses were performing agricultural work and were barely at the distance of 50 ft., but could not come forward. No sooner the accused left the place, they came and looking to the condition of P.W.4, they rushed to P.W.1. In the agriculture field, where P.W.4 was watching agricultural activities while labours were working at the material time, it cannot be said that the prosecution should have examined other independent witnesses since there were no such independent witnesses. By the very nature of the employees referred above being eye-witness, their evidence cannot be discarded under the banner of they being interested witnesses. The term "interested witness" has several shades and angularities, coming forward to narrate events is not to be looked with jaundiced eyes. By the very nature of the employees referred above being eye-witness, their evidence cannot be discarded under the banner of they being interested witnesses. The term "interested witness" has several shades and angularities, coming forward to narrate events is not to be looked with jaundiced eyes. There is nothing to show, these witnesses were demonstrating mere loyalty to P.w.4 than their presence. In the facts and circumstances, where the labours were working and their master was brutally attacked, they cannot be said to be cooked and brought up witnesses to narrate the incident against the accused. 9) It is brought in the evidence and confirmed by P.W.4, coupled with evidence of P.W.1, that he had no animosity with the accused. It was only a dispute between the accused - Mallikarjun and another, in which, as Police Patil (P.W.4) became instrumental and at Police Station has raised his voice, the accused got annoyed and in the company they came together with deadly weapons and in the manner as stated by P.W.4 and witnessed by other eye-witnesses, have assaulted P.W.4 causing fifteen injuries to him. 10) Section 320 of IPC deals with grievous hurt and clause Seventhly indicates fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth. As stated earlier, injuries at Serial Nos. 1 and 2 suffered by P.W.4, recorded by P.W.3 will be coming in terms of clause Seventhly of Section 320 of IPC and naturally such injury was grievous in nature, therefore, it will not be a hurt to get benefit for the accused. The act of the accused, armed with deadly weapons, was in all situations a voluntary act. They had come prepared and consequently even pelted stone on the PW-4 injured causing abrasion to him at his back side. As stated earlier, user of axe or Katti will be coming within the terms of "deadly weapons", which is likely to cause death, and naturally has its impact on the witness P.W.4, he was in the hospital for more than three months and could not follow his ordinary pursuits. . 11) Learned defence counsel in this context invited my attention to the judgment reported in 1969 Cri.L.J. 1498 in the matter of State of Gujarat Vs. Samaj. . 11) Learned defence counsel in this context invited my attention to the judgment reported in 1969 Cri.L.J. 1498 in the matter of State of Gujarat Vs. Samaj. In that case, the matter pertained to the hurt caused on the person of the victim and he was unable to follow his ordinary pursuits during the space of 20 days and Hon’ble Lordships observed that : " Both the ingredients have got to be established by the prosecution and it would not be enough to say that he remained in the hospital for 20 days. The case before hand is within the bracket of Section 320 clause Seventhly and will not be attracting the impediments as envisaged in clause (8) of Section 320 of IPC. 12) Learned Sr.Counsel then invited my attention to the judgment reported in 1997 Cri.L.J. 1788 in the matter of Narayan Kanu Datavale and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra, in which, this Court observed that while appreciating evidence of injured, there is no immutable rule that such evidence should be mechanically accepted. 13) On reading judgment of the two courts, I find that both the Courts have dealt with the evidence of P.W.4 in depth and they have not mechanically accepted the evidence. The evidence of P.W.4 had the support of other three eye-witnesses coupled with evidence of medical officer (P.W.3) and P.W.16. The learned Judge also recorded the finding concerning recovery of axe at the intance of the accused to be inspiring confidence and such recovery having been proved was one of the corroborative facts against the accused/appellant. 14) Since there are two concurrent findings of the courts below against the accused and on revision or reappreciating the evidence, no infirmity could be seen at the threshold in the matter, it cannot be said that the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class or the order of the Additional Sessions Judge smacks with perversity or requires interference. In the result, the criminal revision preferred by the accused/appellant is rejected. 15) Now comes the appeal preferred by the State for enhancement for the sentence recorded against accused nos. 2, 10 and 5. Evidence of P.W.1, as stated earlier, is only to put the prosecution in motion and nothing more. The other evidence of the injured and the eye-witnesses is elaborately discussed hereinbefore. 15) Now comes the appeal preferred by the State for enhancement for the sentence recorded against accused nos. 2, 10 and 5. Evidence of P.W.1, as stated earlier, is only to put the prosecution in motion and nothing more. The other evidence of the injured and the eye-witnesses is elaborately discussed hereinbefore. The finding of the learned Judge, while awarding the sentence is recorded in paragraphs 20 and 21 of the Judgment. The learned Judge was satisfied that the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt, the accused persons formed unlawful assembly and they were members of that assembly and it has also proved that the prosecution of common object of assembly was to assualt the injured. The learned Judge also recorded, "it has also proved that the accused persons formed unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object to the said assembly was to assault Hanmantrao Patil and the accused nos. 2, 10 and 5 were armed with deadly weapons and they have voluntarily caused grievous hurt in pursuance of the said common object." In paragraph 22, on the point of awarding the sentence, the learned Judge has referred that when he asked the accused persons, they claimed that they have not committed any offence. The learned Judge observed, taking into consideration the nature of offence and the age, antecedent and character of accused persons, the punishment to be awarded by him will be sufficient for ends of justice and consequently, as stated earlier, he awarded punishment to accused nos. 2 ; accused no. 5 and accused no. 10, for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, for a period of one year each and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. The observation of the learned Judge, and even confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, cannot be said, in the set of situation, to be erroneous, as the learned Judge has exercised his discretion in the light of evidence, demeanour of the witnesses and fact situation at the material time. The other circumstance in the matter also cannot be ignored. The judgment of the learned Judge, convicting the accused is dated 22.09.1994. The Criminal Appeal No. 30/1994 was decided on 27.09.2006 and the Criminal Revision and the present Criminal appeal are decided today. The time between all the events also needs consideration. The other circumstance in the matter also cannot be ignored. The judgment of the learned Judge, convicting the accused is dated 22.09.1994. The Criminal Appeal No. 30/1994 was decided on 27.09.2006 and the Criminal Revision and the present Criminal appeal are decided today. The time between all the events also needs consideration. It is informed by both the sides that there is no case pending against the accused, nor they are involved in any criminal activities prior to the incident or post incident. 16) The learned Sr.Counsel even urged that the accused and the injured are not evolving in any scores against each other and for all purposes, they have settled the controversies whatever has happened has gone to past. He alternatively urged that the punishment undergone during the period, may be considered and considering the said punishment, the accused/appellants/revision petitioners be released forthwith. Since the State has challenged the very punishment to be inadequate, it will be mockery of justice to reduce the said conviction of one year to the period undergone which will be amounting to rub salt on the injuries suffered by P.W.4 for no fault of him since he was a police patil and was ordinarily required to discharge his duties as such. He had no motive or ill will against the accused. Simply performing his part of obligation has indeed staked his life as he was required to suffer fifteen incise wounds, as reflected hereinabove and hospitalised for 3 months. 17) Considering all the facts, I do not see that there is any other reason to enhance the sentence awarded to the accused. Hence, order : ORDER (i) Criminal Revision No. 332 of 2006 moved by the accused/revision petitioners is rejected; (ii) Criminal Appeal moved by the State for enhancement of sentence is rejected; (iii) The accused, who are on bail, will surrender before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Degloor on 3rd of November, 2008.