JUDGMENT :- 1. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Puducherry, in C.C.No.370/2004, dated 23.05.2007, convicted the accused for the offence under Sections 326 and 506(ii) I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo three months' simple imprisonment on each count and the sentence shall run concurrently and to pay a fine of Rs.250/- on each count, in default in payment to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment, against which, the accused was preferred an appeal in C.A.No.14/2007, dated 07.10.2009, on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Puducherry, modified the conviction for the offence under Sections 324 and 506(ii) I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 45 days on each count and to pay a fine of Rs.250/- on each count, in default in payment to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment, against which, the accused preferred this revision. 2. The case of the prosecution is as follows: (i) On 21.09.2003, at about 15.30 hours, when P.W.1-Murugan and his friend Natarajan were proceeding to Thirumudi Sethuraman Nagar, Puducherry, at that time, the accused came there and made a wordy quarrel with P.W.1-Murugan by saying that why he has not obeyed his words and assaulted him with iron rod and brick on his back and thereby caused grievous injuries to P.W.1. The accused also threatened him with dire consequences to his life. Then, P.W.1 was taken to Jipmer hospital by the said Natarajan and his brother P.W.2 Rajendran, where Dr.Anbukani gave treatment to P.W.1 and the wound certificate was marked as Ex.P2. Thereafter, P.W.1 gave complaint Ex.P1 to the Head Constable Pandurangan, who registered a case in Crime No.197/2003 under Sections 324, 506(ii) I.P.C. read with 34 I.P.C. against the accused. Then, he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. (ii) Then, P.W.4-Viravallabhan, was the then Sub-Inspector of Police took up the matter for investigation and altered the case under Section 324 I.P.C. into Sections 326 and 506(ii) I.P.C. read with 34 I.P.C. and alteration report was marked as Ex.P5. After examining the witnesses, the accused was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. After completing investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Sections 326 and 506(ii) read with 34 I.P.C. 3. After examining the witnesses, the accused was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. After completing investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Sections 326 and 506(ii) read with 34 I.P.C. 3. The trial Court, after considering the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 and Exs.P1 to P5, convicted the accused for the offence under Sections 326 and 506(ii) I.P.C. and sentenced him as stated above, against which, the accused preferred an appeal in C.A.No.14/2007, on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Puducherry, wherein the learned Judge, after hearing the arguments of both sides counsel, modified the conviction for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C. into Section 324 I.P.C. and confirming the conviction for the offence under Section 506(ii) I.P.C. and sentenced him as stated above, against which, the present revision has been preferred by the revision petitioner/accused. 4. Challenging the conviction and sentence passed by both the Courts below, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused submitted that scene of occurrence has not been proved. There are two different versions given by P.W.1/injured, one in F.I.R. and another in his evidence. There was a delay in preferring the complaint. Dr.Anbukani, who treated P.W.1, was not examined and no reason has been assigned that why that doctor was not examined. P.W.2, who is none other than the brother of the injured, is not an eye witness. Hence, there is no evidence to convict the accused for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. Hence he prayed for the acquittal of the accused. 5. Refuting the same, the learned Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) submitted that the evidence of P.W.1/injured eye-witness is natural, cogent and trustworthy, so it is reliable. There is no delay in preferring the complaint. Since the doctor, who treated P.W.1, was retired from service, Dr.Vijayalakshmi was examined as P.W.3. Even though the trial Court convicted the accused for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C., the first appellate Court modified the conviction for the offence into Section 324 I.P.C., which does not warrant any interference. Hence, he prayed for confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the first appellate Court. 6. Considered the rival submissions made on both sides as well as the materials available on record. 7. P.W.1-Murugan is an injured eye-witness. P.W.2-Rajendran is the brother of P.W.1, who is not an eye-witness. P.W.3 is a Doctor. P.W.4 is Sub-Inspector of Police, who investigated the matter. 6. Considered the rival submissions made on both sides as well as the materials available on record. 7. P.W.1-Murugan is an injured eye-witness. P.W.2-Rajendran is the brother of P.W.1, who is not an eye-witness. P.W.3 is a Doctor. P.W.4 is Sub-Inspector of Police, who investigated the matter. Only available evidence is the evidence of P.W.1. Considering the chief-examination of P.W.1, there is no reason has been assigned as to why he deposed against the accused. Since P.W.1 is an injured eye witness, there is no reason for discarding the evidence of P.W.1. It is well settled dictum of the apex Court that a singe related injured eye witness is reliable provided it must be natural, cogent and trustworthy. As already stated that P.W.1 is an injured eye-witness, while considering his cross-examination, there was no enmity in between P.W.1 and the accused and no reason has been assigned for giving false case against the accused. In such circumstances, the evidence of P.W.1 is natural, cogent and convincing and hence, it is trustworthy and reliable. As already stated that P.W.2 is not an eye-witness. The evidence of P.W.1 has been clearly proved that since the accused has assaulted P.W.1, he has sustained injuries. It is true, the doctor, who gave treatment to the P.W.1 was not examined before the Court. Only the medical officer Vijayalakshmi, who is well acquaintance the signature and writing of Dr.Anbukani, was examined as P.W.3. In her evidence, Dr.Anbukani was retired from service. In such circumstances, prosecution is not in a position to produce Dr.Anbukani before the Court for examining as witness. Hence, Vijayalakshmi was examined as P.W.3. Even though P.W.3 has stated that P.W.1 has sustained grievous injury, on substantiating the same, no document has been filed to prove that P.W.1 has sustained grievous injury. Hence the first appellate Court considered this aspect in a proper perspective and came to the correct conclusion that the offence has not been made out under Section 326 I.P.C., but only under Section 324 I.P.C. So the accused was convicted for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. Hence, I do not find any illegality in the conviction passed by the first appellate Court for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. So I am forced to concur with the findings of the first appellate court that the offence has been proved under Section 324 I.P.C. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the revision petitioner/accused was convicted for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C., he prayed for some leniency in the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. He further submitted that the revision petitioner/accused was already in jail for nearly 12 days. He also paid the fine amount of Rs.250/-. Hence, I am of the view that since the evidence of P.W.1/injured is sufficient to convict the accused for the offence under Section 506(ii) I.P.C. by making criminal intimidation to P.W.1, the conviction for the offence under Sections 324 I.P.C. and 506(ii) I.P.C. are hereby confirmed. Since the petitioner/accused was already in jail for nearly 12 days and paid the fine amount of Rs.250/-, on considering the age of the petitioner/accused, I am inclined to reduce the sentence from 45 days period already undergone by him. 9. In fine, The criminal revision is dismissed. The sentence alone has been reduced from 45 days the period already undergone by the revision petitioner/accused. Bail bond, if any, executed by the revision petitioner/accused, shall stand cancelled.