ORDER : The instant revision has been filed to challenge the concurrent findings of conviction recorded against the petitioners by both the Courts below. Petitioner No. 1-Jaspinder Singh Dhami was convicted of the charges under Sections 452/326/324/323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) whereas petitioner No. 2-Sarabjit Kaur was convicted under Sections 452, 326 read with Section 34 and 324/323, IPC. They were acquitted of the charges under Sections 506 and 427, IPC. Both the petitioners were awarded the sentences as under:- Name of Section Sentence Fine In default accused (IPC) (R.I.) ( Rs. ) R.I.) Jaspinder 452 Three years 2000/- Two months Singh 326 Three years 2000/- Two months 324 One year 1000/- One month 323 Three 500/- Fifteen days months Sarabjit 452 Three years 2000/- Two months Kaur 326/34 Three years 2000/- Two months 324 One year 1000/- One month 323 Three 500/- Fifteen days months All the sentences were to run concurrently. 2. As per custody certificates placed on record by the State counsel, petitioner No. 1 by now has undergone about 6 months whereas petitioner No. 2 about 5 months of actual sentence. 3. The facts briefly stated are that complainant-Jiwan Kishan Khullar (PW-1), Excise Inspector (retired) recorded First Information Report (FIR) with the police for the incident dated 8.11.2003. There was 16 feet of vacant land in between the houses of the complainant and the petitioners-accused. 10 feet of the site belonged to the complainant and remaining 6 feet to petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 1 was not permitting the complainant to raise construction over this 10 feet wide plot. The dispute with regard to ownership of the vacant land was pending before the Civil Court, Hoshiarpur which was decided on 18.9.2003 in favour of complainant. 4. While the complainant was measuring 10 feet of his vacant land on 8.11.2003 at about 10.00 a.m., petitioner No. 1-Jaspinder Singh came and said that he has obtained stay against the decision of Civil Judge and the complainant should thus stop making measurement. The complainant asked petitioner No. 1 to show the stay order. The complainant then came back to his house and petitioner No. 1 also went from there. 5. After about one hour, the call bell rang at the door of complainant- s house. He opened the door and saw both the petitioners, who are husband and wife, armed with a gandasi each. The complainant then came back to his house and petitioner No. 1 also went from there. 5. After about one hour, the call bell rang at the door of complainant- s house. He opened the door and saw both the petitioners, who are husband and wife, armed with a gandasi each. They were accompanied by three other un-identified persons one of whom seemed to be a Bhaiya. Those un-identified persons were armed with iron rods. 6. The petitioners and their companions entered inside the complainant- s house. Petitioner No. 1 exhorted his companions to teach a lesson to the complainant for occupying the land illegally. Petitioner No. 1 gave a gandasi blow on the head of the complainant who fell on the ground. The companions of petitioner No. 1 inflicted more injuries to complainant with the iron rods. The complainant raised an alarm and his wife Kiran Khullar (PW-2) came there. PW-2 immediately went inside the room to make phone call to the police. Petitioner No. 2 chased the wife of complainant. The complainant also went there and saw that petitioner No. 2 inflicted gandasi blow on the head of PW-2 and also a few more injuries on her person. The occurrence was also witnessed by Dimple Khullar (PW-3) daughter-in-law of the complainant. While running away the accused persons threatened complainant party with dire consequences. They also caused damage to the pipes fixed on outerwall of the house. In the meanwhile, Rajesh Khullar son of the complainant reached there and took them in a car to Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur where the injured were medically examined. 7. It is the prosecution version that copies of MLRs of both the witnesses were received at the police station on 9.11.2003. Police party headed by ASI Gurvinder Singh reached the hospital and after seeking opinion of the doctor about fitness of complainant, recorded his statement Ex. PA, which was sent to the police station by making endorsement Ex. PW-7/A at 5.45 p.m. and FIR Ex. PW-7/B was registered on its basis. 8. After his discharge from the Civil Hospital, the complainant got C.T. Scan of the head injury from PGI Chandigarh on 29.11.2003. On the basis of report of C.T. Scan, the doctor gave further opinion on 18.12.2003 declaring injury No. 1 on the person of PW-1 grievous in nature. PW-7/B was registered on its basis. 8. After his discharge from the Civil Hospital, the complainant got C.T. Scan of the head injury from PGI Chandigarh on 29.11.2003. On the basis of report of C.T. Scan, the doctor gave further opinion on 18.12.2003 declaring injury No. 1 on the person of PW-1 grievous in nature. Therefore, offence under Section 326, IPC was added on 18.12.2003 vide DDR No. 28 Ex. PW-5/B. 9. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses in support of its case. The petitioners were examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. by putting all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in prosecution evidence. The defence plea set up by both the petitioners was that the injuries in fact were caused to the PWs by the labourers engaged by the complainant for construction work, due to the dispute of non-payment of labour charges. The said incident was witnessed by Chaman Lal S/o Amar Chand who went inside the house of the complainant on hearing noise. 10. I have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel and have carefully perused the judgments of the Courts below and the trial Court record. 11. It was contended by learned senior counsel for petitioners that there is a huge delay in lodging the FIR which gave sufficient time to the complainant party to concoct a story with due deliberations. It was further contended that there were civil litigations between them for the property dispute which was the motive to implicate the petitioners to settle scores. It was also vehemently contended that the prosecution has been unable to prove that the head injury on the complainant was grievous in nature. It was, thus, submitted that the Courts- below have ignored these important factors while holding the petitioners to be guilty of the charges. 12. On the other hand learned State counsel submitted that there is cogent and convincing evidence produced by the prosecution and the delay has been properly explained. It is further contended that there is no inherent defect in the medical evidence for holding the head injury on the complainant to be grievous in nature. 13. The prosecution story has been reiterated by the complainant himself as PW-1, his wife Kiran Khullar as PW-2 and PW-3 Dimple Khullar the daughter-in-law of the complainant. Presence of PW-2 cannot be disputed being a stamped witness having suffered injuries in the occurrence. 14. 13. The prosecution story has been reiterated by the complainant himself as PW-1, his wife Kiran Khullar as PW-2 and PW-3 Dimple Khullar the daughter-in-law of the complainant. Presence of PW-2 cannot be disputed being a stamped witness having suffered injuries in the occurrence. 14. An attempt was made to challenge the version by bringing on record the fact that the Investigating Officer did not lift the blood stains from the spot or that there was a delay in lodging the FIR. It would be relevant to note that the factum of complainant and his wife having suffered injuries on 8.11.2003 in their house was not disputed. The petitioners have set up a defence, that some construction labour engaged by the petitioners were the real culprits. It was not possible to accept the above defence as the eye-witnesses especially the injured would not rope in innocent persons and leaving the real culprits. 15. The petitioners tendered judgments of the Civil Courts to bring on record the motive for their false implication. Ex. DA dated 18.9.2003 is the consolidated judgment in two Civil Suits Nos. 90 of 1995/2001 and 91 of 1995. Civil Suit No. 90 of 1995/1991 was filed by petitioner No. 1-Jaspinder Singh against Satish Kumar Sharma and the wife of complainant as defendants with a prayer for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in possession of 10 marlas of plot. Civil Suit No. 91 of 1995 was filed by Satish Kumar Sharma against petitioner No. 1 for declaration that 10 feet wide strip of land is part of 20 feet wide passage marked as ' ABCD- or in the alternative of having acquired easement right in the passage. The suit filed by petitioner No. 1 was decreed whereas Suit No. 91 of 1995 filed by Satish Kumar Sharma was dismissed. 16. Civil Appeal Nos. 360 and 362 of 2003 filed by Satish Kumar Sharma against those judgments were dismissed. The suit filed by petitioner No. 1 was decreed whereas Suit No. 91 of 1995 filed by Satish Kumar Sharma was dismissed. 16. Civil Appeal Nos. 360 and 362 of 2003 filed by Satish Kumar Sharma against those judgments were dismissed. It was observed by the Appellate Court that by raising of the wall enclosing the site left by Satish Kumar Sharma to be used as part of the alleged 20 feet wide strip was suggestive of the fact that alleged passage ceased to exist at the spot and in this way, the appellant is neither entitled to the declaration that he has acquired the right by way of easement of necessity or that 20 feet wide passages is in existence as an approach to his house. 17. The other relevant documents tendered on record by the petitioners are the orders passed on application under Order 39, Rule 2-A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) initiated at the instance of Satish Kumar Sharma which was dismissed on 18.9.2003 vide order Ex. DE and judgment dated 23.9.2008 Ex. DF passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar in another case titled Manjit Kaur v. Smt. Kiran Khullar [(PW-2) wife of the complainant]. 18. The most important aspect, however, was that the petitioners remained silent about decision in Civil Suit No. 89 of 1995 titled Kiran Khullar v. Jaspinder Singh decided on the same day i.e. 18.9.2003 in favour of Kiran Khullar and that judgment is Ex. PB in a suit for declaration in which Kiran Khullar claimed herself owner in possession of the plot. The controversy in the said suit was also with regard to 10 feet wide passage left by the plaintiff who was in fact the owner of the plot. On issue No. 5, it was observed that water/sewerage pipes have been laid by plaintiff (PW-2) on the passage 10 feet wide which was left by her. The suit of Kiran Khullar was decreed and there is nothing on record to suggest that this judgment was appealed against by petitioner No. 1 who was the defendant in the said case. 19. The suit of Kiran Khullar was decreed and there is nothing on record to suggest that this judgment was appealed against by petitioner No. 1 who was the defendant in the said case. 19. Anyhow, the motive part about the existence of stay or not was not so important when the prosecution story was that the petitioners committed criminal trespass by entering into the residential house of complainant party used as human dwelling and inflicted serious injuries on their person. On such a version the motive pales into insignificance when there is eye-witness account of version. 20. The petitioners pleaded that the incident in which the construction labourers of the complainant quarrelled with them was witnessed by Chaman Lal S/o Amar Chand but no such witness was examined in defence. 21. I have perused the judgment of both the Courts below and find that all the contentions have been discussed and the evidence was properly analyzed to come to a definite finding. If there are few discrepancies here and there, that cannot be given undue weight for arriving at a different conclusion, as there is the limited scope to interfere in those findings in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Even the question of some delay has been properly discussed by both the Courts below. The delay if any seems to be due to lackadaisical approach of the police. As apparent from the medico-legal report, both the injured reached the Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur at 11.40 a.m. on 8.11.2003 itself and medically examined soon thereafter. The witnesses rather are quite consistent on important aspects. As per prosecution version, PW-2 went inside the room to make telephonic call but was chased and attacked by petitioner No. 2. This kind of version supported by PW-1 and PW-2 also seems to be quite natural and cannot be a concocted story. 22. Coming to the bone of contention of learned senior counsel for the petitioners about the nature of injury No. 1 on the person of complainant, that injury was described by the doctor as under:- ' 1. Incised bound 8 x .5 cm into bone deep obliquely placed on mid parietal region of scalp, the anterior end of which is 6 cm from anterior hair line. Fresh bleeding was present.' X-ray was advised for injuries Nos. 1 to 4 on the person of the complainant by PW-4 Dr. Jaswinder Singh who conducted medico-legal examination. 23. Incised bound 8 x .5 cm into bone deep obliquely placed on mid parietal region of scalp, the anterior end of which is 6 cm from anterior hair line. Fresh bleeding was present.' X-ray was advised for injuries Nos. 1 to 4 on the person of the complainant by PW-4 Dr. Jaswinder Singh who conducted medico-legal examination. 23. PW-6 Dr. Jagmohan Singh, was the radiologist who conducted the X-ray examination of the injuries kept under observation. There was no bone injury on X-ray examination of injury Nos. 2 to 4 which were thus, declared simple in nature by PW-4. For injury No. 1 PW-6 stated that no definite opinion could be given. He advised C.T. Scan. The doctor further stated that patient got conducted C.T. Scan from PGI Chandigarh. PW-6 further stated that he sent one X-ray film and duplicate copy of C.T. Scan report to Dr. Jaswinder Singh (PW-4) for further action. 24. PW-8 Dr. Vivek Virmani, Medical Officer in PGI Chandigarh stated that on C.T. Scan of the patient conducted on 29.11.2003 by the team of doctors comprising of PW-8, Dr. J.R. Babu Raj and Dr. Asmi, it was found that there was fracture in squamous part of left temporal bone, with underline area of gliosis resolved contusions right temporal lobe. The report Ex. PW-4/E was prepared by Dr. J.R. Babu Raj. PW-8 further stated that squamous temporal bone is weak and thin. According to PW-8, this damage to the brain tissue by fluid or fibrosis could be old damage as well. PW-8 could not say how much old could be the fracture of this squamous temporal bone mentioned in C.T. Scan report. These fractures could be recent, old or very old. PW-8 stated further in cross-examination that nothing can be said about the age of these injuries. 25. PW-4 Dr. Jaswinder Singh who had conducted medico-legal examination of PW-1 stated that on receipt of C.T. Scan report, he found injury No. 1 grievous in nature vide his report Ex. PW-4/F. PW-4 referred to the C.T. Scan report Ex. PW-4/E proved by PW-8 Dr. Vivek Virmani, which reads as under:- ' Posterior fossa is normal. The basal cisterns are clear. A hypodense area suggestive of a gliosis resolving contusion is present in the right temporal lobe. A fracture of the squamous temporal lobe is present. It is undisplaced. Third and both lateral ventricle is normal. PW-4/E proved by PW-8 Dr. Vivek Virmani, which reads as under:- ' Posterior fossa is normal. The basal cisterns are clear. A hypodense area suggestive of a gliosis resolving contusion is present in the right temporal lobe. A fracture of the squamous temporal lobe is present. It is undisplaced. Third and both lateral ventricle is normal. There is no midline shift present.' From the cross-examination of PW-4 it appears that the complainant was also treated by the specialist Dr. Bhupinder Singh. PW-4 in cross-examination stated that he identifies the signatures of Dr. Bhupinder Singh as he is conversant with his hand-writing and signatures. The surgical report in relation to the clinical treatment and diagnosis of the complainant shows that the patient was treated for the injuries and also for already suffering ailments of diabetes mallitis and hypertension in collaboration with medical department, Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur. 26. Learned petitioners- counsel, however, mainly relied upon testimony of PW-4 Dr. Jaswinder Singh who stated that in chief-examination that the fracture did not correspond to the site of injury as mentioned in the MLR. This opinion was reiterated by PW-4 in cross-examination also. I am, however, of the view that while furnishing report Ex. PW-4/E on 16.12.2003, about nature of injury Dr. Jaswinder Singh (PW-4) had not indicated at all that the fracture found in C.T. Scan report did not correspond to injury No. 1. He has come up with this version for the first time while appearing in the witness box. It is important to note that in the C.T. Scan report Ex. PW-4/E it was found that resolving contusion is present in the right temporal lobe. It was further found that fracture of squamous was present. The conclusion arrived at in the report Ex. PW-4/E was that there was fracture squamous part of left temporal bone. PW-8 Dr. Vivek Virmani of PGI, Chandigarh in cross-examination categorically stated that word resolving means the contusion is in process of healing. From the above opinion it could be said positively that the fracture found is directly connected with the injury caused to the complainant in this incident. C.T. Scan in fact was done about 20 days after the incident. There is nothing to suggest that the complainant suffered head injury in any incident of a different date. 27. From the above opinion it could be said positively that the fracture found is directly connected with the injury caused to the complainant in this incident. C.T. Scan in fact was done about 20 days after the incident. There is nothing to suggest that the complainant suffered head injury in any incident of a different date. 27. The learned trial Court has observed and quite rightly that to find out nature of such injury an intensive and special investigation was required. The deep investigation was conducted at PGI which is a pioneer institute of repute. 28. It would be appropriate to state that on medico-legal examination of the patient on 9.11.2003 an incised wound was found by the doctor for injury No. 1 and there was fresh bleeding present for which X-ray and surgical opinion was advised. As per report Ex. PW6/9 of PW-6 Dr. Jagmohan Singh the patient was referred for C.T. Scan examination in Government College(s) at Amritsar/Patiala but due to non working of C.T. Scan at these institutions, he was referred to PGI Chandigarh. 29. From the above discussion, I find no scope of interference on merits in the findings recorded by both the Courts below in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. 30. However, there was only one injury on person of complainant which has been found grievous in nature. For the offence under Section 324, IPC, the injury with sharp edged weapon on the head of PW-2 is attributed to petitioner No. 2-Sarabjit Kaur. This injury is described as under:- ' 1. Incised wound 4.5 cm. to 0.5 cm into bone deep obliquely placed present on mid- parietal region of scalp, 13 cm. posterior to anterior hair line of scalp. Fresh bleeding was present, advised X-ray and surgical opinion.' As per opinion of PW-6 Dr. Jagmohan Singh who conducted X-ray examination of the injury kept under observation, there was no bony injury corresponding to injury No. 1. In the facts proved, the conviction of petitioner No. 1 for offences under Sections 324 and 323, IPC is altered to the offences under Sections 324/323 both read with Section 34, IPC. 31. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners and the State counsel were also heard on the quantum of sentence. From the facts and circumstances the sentence awarded to the petitioners seems to be quite on the higher side. As per the report of Dr. Bhupinder Singh Ex. 31. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners and the State counsel were also heard on the quantum of sentence. From the facts and circumstances the sentence awarded to the petitioners seems to be quite on the higher side. As per the report of Dr. Bhupinder Singh Ex. DA, PW-1 was discharged in satisfactory condition on 15.11.2003 without any sequela (after effects) of injuries. Therefore, the complainant remained admitted in the hospital for less than a week. The incident is of the year 2003 and the petitioners are much above 50 years of age. Petitioner No. 2 is a female. 32. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the sentence under Sections 452/326, IPC to petitioner No. 1-Jaspinder Singh Dhami and under Sections 452 and 326 read with Section 34, IPC to petitioner No. 2-Sarabjit Kaur is reduced from 3 years rigorous imprisonment to 1 year rigorous imprisonment each but the amount of fine is enhanced to Rs. 5000/- each on each of these counts and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months each. Sentence of petitioner No. 2-Sarabjit Kaur is reduced from 1 year to rigorous imprisonment of 8 months under Section 324, IPC and similarly the sentence awarded to petitioner No. 1 under Section 324/34, IPC is reduced from 1 year rigorous imprisonment to 8 months rigorous imprisonment but the fine is enhanced to an amount Rs. 5000/- each under this count and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 months each. The sentences of imprisonment of both the petitioners i.e. petitioner No. 1 under Section 323/34, IPC and to petitioner No. 2 under Section 323, IPC as awarded by the Courts below are maintained except to increase in the amount of fine from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1000/- each and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. All the substantive sentences of imprisonment would, however, run concurrently. The amount of fine if recovered shall be disbursed to both the injured i.e. the complainant and his wife (PW-2) equally. 33. With the above modification in the quantum of sentence and alteration in the convictions to petitioner No. 1, the instant revision on merits is dismissed. Revision dismissed.