JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment dated 27.6.2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 8/1997 whereby he confirmed the judgment and order dated 13.3.1997 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 326 I.P.C. and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. 2. The short fact of the case are that 13.8.1988 at 12.00 O'clock Laxman, Kishan Lal, Surjan and Ramjilal were playing with cards and complainant, Indraj and Prahlad were also there. At that time the present petitioner Ramdhan came there with an axe, he inflicted blow on Ramji Lal with the Axe on his head. Ramji Lal intervened with his hand and he sustained grievous injuries on his hand. At this F.I.R. No. 133/1988 has been registered. After investigation charge-sheet has been filed and on conclusion of trial present petitioner has been convicted and sentenced as above. Appeal has also been dismissed. Hence, this revision petition. 3. The contention of the present petitioner is that the Investigation Officer and Dr. J.C. Sharma who first treated injured have not produced. F.I.R. was lodged with delay. Eye-witnesses Laxman, Kishal Lal and Prahlad have not supported the prosecution story. Recovery is doubtful and there is also contradictions regarding weapon of offence. Hence, conviction is bad in law. 4. Per contra, the contention of learned Public Prosecutor is that Ramji Lal has proved the prosecution case, which was further supported by eye-witnesses and medical evidence. There is no infirmity in the findings of the Court below and no interference is needed. 5. Heard learned counsel the parties and perused the impugned order as well as the original record of the case. 6. Ramji Lal has stated that present petitioner has inflicted blow of axe and he suffered grievous injuries. Other two eye-witnesses PW-1 Kailash and PW-2 Indraj have also supported the story which was further corroborated by the medical evidence. 7. It is true that Investigating Officer has not been produced but when ocular evidence supported by medical evidence are there, non-production of Investigating Officer is inconsequential. At the same time Dr. Other two eye-witnesses PW-1 Kailash and PW-2 Indraj have also supported the story which was further corroborated by the medical evidence. 7. It is true that Investigating Officer has not been produced but when ocular evidence supported by medical evidence are there, non-production of Investigating Officer is inconsequential. At the same time Dr. J.C. Sharma who first treated injured has not been produced but non-production is of no effect as doctor who has medically examined injured and prepared the injury report has been examined. The injured has been taken to hospital and report has been lodged on the same day. There is no delay in filing the F.I.R. It is true that report has been reached to the Court on 17.8.1988 but this fact alone is not fatal looking to the other evidence available on record. 8. The contention of the present petitioner is that recovery of the Kulhari is not proved against the petitioner but it is of no value as ocular evidence along with medical evidence is suffice to maintain the conviction of the present petitioner. 9. Some contradictions have been narrated regarding weapon of the offence that whether it is Kulhadi or Tanchiya, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is no significant difference in Kulhadi or Tanchiya and it is not in dispute that Ramjilal has suffered injury from sharp edged weapon and statement of Ramjilal is further corroborated by the statements of eye-witnesses and medical evidence. 10. Kishan Lal, Laxman and some other witnesses have not supported the prosecution story but it could also not effect the conviction of the petitioner as stated earlier that Ramjilal has proved the case, which has further supported by the statements of the eye-witnesses and corroborated by the medical evidence and there is no infirmity in finding of the Courts below and no interference is needed. 11. Other contention of the present petitioner is that his age is 65 years and he is suffering pain of proceedings since 1988 and he is also patient of T.B., therefore, liberal view be taken. 12. Per contra, the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that looking to the nature of the offence, the present petitioner deserves no sympathy. 11. Other contention of the present petitioner is that his age is 65 years and he is suffering pain of proceedings since 1988 and he is also patient of T.B., therefore, liberal view be taken. 12. Per contra, the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that looking to the nature of the offence, the present petitioner deserves no sympathy. It is true that the offence relating to 1988 but the present petitioner is also guilty of delay as in appeal he has sought most of adjournments, hence, he could not complain for the delay and looking to the serious nature of the offence and injury caused to Ramji Lal, he deserves no sympathy, but considering the fact that the matter is old-one, the present petitioner is of 65 years of age, his imprisonment of 3 years is reduced to the sentence of one year. 13. The revision petition is partly allowed and the conviction awarded by the judgment and order dated 13.3.1997 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh and upheld, by judgment dated 27.6.2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh is modified to the extent that the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced from three years to one year rigorous imprisonment. The petitioner is on bail, he is directed to surrender before the trial Court to serve out the remaining sentence. If the petitioner does not surrender himself before the trial Court then the trial Court shall take appropriate action in accordance with law.Revision partly allowed. *******