Judgment ( 1. ) THIS criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, finding and sentence dated 13/07/2006 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Shahdol, in Criminal Appeal No. 205/2005, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 326 of I. P. C, and sentenced to R. I. for one year with fine of Rs. 500/ -. ( 2. ) THE prosecution case in short is that on 28. 06. 1996 at about 12 Noon complainant Jitendra Singh Rathore was going to call his brother-in-law Kamala Prasad Rathore. As soon as he reached near fencing boundary of the house of his brother-in-law the accused persons used filthy languages and this applicant inflicted Farsa blow on account of which he sustained injury. The complainant was medically examined. On the basis of medical report F. I. R. was written. Crime No. 120/1996 under Section 324 of I. P. C. was registered at Police Station Jaithari. His x-ray was also taken. Fracture was found in index, middle and ring finger of left hand. Therefore, the offence was converted under Section 326 of I. P. C. Spot map was prepared. The statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr. P. C. After completing the usual investigation charge sheet was filed in the trial Court. ( 3. ) THE Trial Court framed the charge under Section 326 of I. P. C. The accused persons denied the guilt and claimed to be tried mainly contending that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated. Prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses but the accused persons did not examine any witness in their defence. After appreciating the evidence trial Court acquitted other accused persons except this applicant who was found guilty under Section 326 of I. P. C. Being aggrieved by the judgment finding and sentence passed by the trial Court in Criminal Appeal No. 205/2005 was filed before the Sessions Court but same was dismissed with modification in sentence only. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment the instant revision has been preferred on the grounds mentioned in the memo of revision. ( 4. ) LEARNED counsel for the applicant submitted that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment the instant revision has been preferred on the grounds mentioned in the memo of revision. ( 4. ) LEARNED counsel for the applicant submitted that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. There are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Prosecution has failed to examine Investigation Officer. Doctor has also admitted that the injury may be caused by sickle. The other co-accused persons have been acquitted from the same set of evidence while this applicant has wrongly been convicted and sentenced. The finding guilt is erroneous which deserves to be set aside and the applicant is entitled for acquittal. ( 5. ) ON the contrary, Shri Ramesh Shukla, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent/state has supported the impugned judgment, finding and sentence mainly contending that prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, hence does not call for interference ( 6. ) THE main point for consideration in this revision is that whether the trial Court has committed any illegality in convicting and sentencing the applicant under Section 326 of I. P. C? ( 7. ) JITENDRA Singh Rathore (PW-1) is the injured person. He has stated in his evidence that he was going to call his brother-in-law at his house. The accused persons used filthy languages. This applicant was armed with farsa. He assaulted with farsa. He tried to prevent it by his hand on account of which he sustained injury. Thereafter he lodged the report. This witness in cross-examination has denied any dispute in between them. However, some dispute admitted in between his brother-in-law and the accused persons. ( 8. ) ON critical appraisal of his evidence it is found that his evidence is intact on the point regarding causing of injury by farsa blow to him by applicant. His evidence has been further supported by Haridin Rathore (PW-3), Gopal Rathore (PW-4), Kamala Prasad (PW-5) and Bhikham Rathore (PW-6) who have clearly stated that this applicant inflicted farsa blow and caused injury to complainant Jitendra Singh Rathore. Their testimonies have not been shattered in cross-examination and their evidence is intact on this point. Thus, there is ample ocular evidence against this applicant. The report was promptly lodged which is proved by Jitendra Singh Rathore (PW-1) and Ram Garib Choubey (PW-8 ). ( 9. ) DR. Their testimonies have not been shattered in cross-examination and their evidence is intact on this point. Thus, there is ample ocular evidence against this applicant. The report was promptly lodged which is proved by Jitendra Singh Rathore (PW-1) and Ram Garib Choubey (PW-8 ). ( 9. ) DR. Brijendra Prasad Shukla (PW-2) has medically examined complainant Jitendra Singh Rathore. He found the following injuries on his person. 1. Incised wound on the dorsal aspect of left hand below the index finger. 4 c. m. x 1/2 c. m. x muscle deep caused by sharp object. X-ray of left hand was advised. 2. Lacerated wound on the palmer aspect of left hand 1 c. m. x c. m. x skin deep below the middle finger. It was caused by hard and blunt object. Duration of both the injuries was two hours. Medical report is Ex. P-1 written and signed by him. ( 10. ) THIS witness in cross-examination has admitted that if any person is cutting the grass by sickle then this injury may be caused. But no any suggestion has been given on behalf of applicant that this injury was caused when cutting the grass by sickle. Therefore, in absence of such evidence it cannot be accepted that this injury was caused by sickle in cutting the grass. ( 11. ) DR. G. C. Motwani (PW-7) has taken the x-ray of complainant and found fracture shaft second metacarpal bone. He also found fracture in neck of proximal phalanx of index, middle and ring finger. He has given x-ray Ex. P-3 which contains his signature. ( 12. ) THUS, from the evidence of Dr. G. C. Motwani (PW-7) this fact is established that the fractures were found in the fingers of left hand as stated hereinabove. The ocular evidence adduced by the prosecution is supported by medical evidence. Therefore, this fact is established that this applicant caused grievous hurt by sharp edged weapon to complainant Jitendra Singh Rathore. Non-examination of Investigation Officer does not materially affect the prosecution case because there are no material contradictions and omission in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Both the courts below have properly appreciated the evidence and have rightly come to the conclusion regarding guilt of the applicant. There is no infirmity, illegality or perversity in such finding and hence the same is hereby affirmed. Both the courts below have properly appreciated the evidence and have rightly come to the conclusion regarding guilt of the applicant. There is no infirmity, illegality or perversity in such finding and hence the same is hereby affirmed. So far as the sentence is concerned, it is not excessive hence does not call for interference. The revision is meritless and deserves to be dismissed. ( 13. ) CONSEQUENTLY, this revision fails and is dismissed accordingly. The conviction and sentence passed by court below is hereby maintained. The applicant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled. He be directed to appear before C. J. M. Shahdol on 16. 02. 2009 to serve out remaining part of the sentence.