Order Chandra Bhushan Bajpai, J. 1. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 05-03-2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Kawardha in Criminal Appeal No. 44/2002 whereby and whereunder while dismissing the appeal filed on behalf of petitioner Abhay Ram and partly allowing the appeal filed on behalf of other two petitioners namely Chamra and Parmeshwar against order dated 25-02-2002 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kawardha in Criminal Case No. 162/2001, conviction and sentence awarded to petitioners Chamra and Parmeshwar were modified in the following manner:- Petitioner Conviction and sentence (by trial court) Modification in conviction and sentence (by appellate court) Chamra u/s 326/34 of the IPC – R.I. for three years and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, indefault, additional imprisonment for three months. u/s 326/34 of the IPC – R.I. for one year and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, R.I. for three months. u/s 323/34 of the IPC – R.I. for three months. u/s 323 of the IPC (three times) – R.I. for three months. Parmeshwar u/s 326/34 of the IPC – R.I. for three years and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, indefault, additional imprisonment for three months. u/s 326/34 of the IPC – R.I. for one year and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, R.I. for three months. u/s 323/34 of the IPC – R.I. for three months. u/s 323/34 of the IPC (three times) – R.I. for three months. Petitioner Abhay Ram was convicted and sentenced by the trial court in the following manner. Appeal filed on his behalf was dismissed and his conviction and sentence was affirmed by the appellate court. Petitioner Conviction and sentence Abhay Ram u/s 326 of the IPC – till rising of the court and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, additional imprisonment for three months. u/s 323 of the IPC – till rising of the Court. 2. Appeal filed on his behalf was dismissed and his conviction and sentence was affirmed by the appellate court. Petitioner Conviction and sentence Abhay Ram u/s 326 of the IPC – till rising of the court and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, additional imprisonment for three months. u/s 323 of the IPC – till rising of the Court. 2. The appellate court affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court dismissing the appeal filed by petitioner Abhay Ram, and instead of sentence awarded under Section 326/34 of the IPC to appellants/present petitioners Chamra and Parmeshwar, reduced the sentence upto one year's rigorous imprisonment and also sentenced them under Section 323/34 of the IPC (three times) and sentenced them under Section 323/34 of the IPC for three month's rigorous imprisonment, fine sentence awarded to appellants/present petitioners Chamra and Parmeshwar is affirmed and ordered that all the rigorous imprisonments awarded shall run concurrently. 3. Conviction and sentence is challenged on the ground that courts below have committed illegality by convicting and sentencing the petitioners in absence of admissible evidence and material sufficient for warrant conviction. 4. Learned counsel appealing for the petitioners submits that there was free fight between the parties, petitioner Chamra also sustained injuries in that incident. A counter criminal case lodged against the victims of this case, the same trial court has tried the counter case in which the victims too are convicted and they are ultimately acquitted by the appellate court. There are omissions and contradictions in the statement of the witnesses. The witnesses are not supporting over material points to each other. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that for conviction under Section 326 of the IPC, it is required that the act should be voluntarily to cause grievous hurt by dangerous weapon or means is mandatory. In this case, weapon used by the petitioners was axe and battle axe which is not a dangerous weapon. The witnesses are near relatives of the victims. Witnesses are interested witnesses. There was no intention to cause grievous hurt to the victims and the petitioners are near relatives, they are residing in near vicinity, their fields are connected. The incident took place on a petty cause. After the incident, both parties are living in a cordial relation. There was no dispute after the said incident. Witnesses are interested witnesses. There was no intention to cause grievous hurt to the victims and the petitioners are near relatives, they are residing in near vicinity, their fields are connected. The incident took place on a petty cause. After the incident, both parties are living in a cordial relation. There was no dispute after the said incident. The doctor opined that there could be no death on account of injuries received by victim Rajaram. Dr. R.P. Nonhare (PW-1) opined that there was fracture in radius ulna and also there was fracture in the lower part of left ulna. Those injuries can be caused in a scuffle. Narmada (PW-4) admitted that a criminal case is also launched against him. There are material omissions and contradictions in the statement of the witnesses also variations appearing which are material. Incident took place on account of two buffalo reached to victims' field and kothar when they attempted for sending them out from their field, the incident took place. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that petitioner Chamra and petitioner Parmeshwar already served in three different occasions about 34 days in jail towards the execution of jail sentence. Date of incident is 29-07-1999. The incident is about 15 years old, there is no criminal antecedent of the petitioners, the petitioners are not involved in any other criminal litigation even after this incident. It is further prayed that revision petition be allowed and the judgment and sentence awarded against the petitioners be set aside. Inter alia, it is further submitted on behalf of the petitioners that petitioners be released by sentencing them for the period already undergone by them, for which reliance is placed upon the matter of George Pon Paul vs. Kanagalet and others, 2009 (3) CCSC 1352 (SC), in which while convicting the appellant under Section 326 of the IPC, the trial court sentenced him confinement till rising of court and fine with default stipulation and the High Court while maintaining the conviction, enhanced the sentence, i.e., sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years in addition to the fine imposed. Hon'ble the Supreme Court decided the matter and held that the case called for interference since fine amount was deposited and paid to victim, hence the sentence restricted to the period already undergone. Hon'ble the Supreme Court decided the matter and held that the case called for interference since fine amount was deposited and paid to victim, hence the sentence restricted to the period already undergone. On behalf of the petitioners reliance is also placed upon the matter of Hari Kishan & State of Haryana vs. Sukhbir Singh, 1988 SC 2127, in which Hon'ble Supreme Court maintained the conviction under Sections 325, 323 read with Sections 149, 148 of the IPC since the occurrence was outcome of sudden flare up, no previous enmity between parties, intention to murder absent, the accused were awarded benefit of probation and they were directed to deposit compensation in tune of Rs. 50,000/- for victim. Learned counsel for the petitioners further placed reliance upon an unreported Criminal Revision No. 1099 of 1996, order dated 14-08-2008 where Single Bench of this High Court modified the sentence awarded under Sections 325/34 and 323/34 of the IPC for the period of 22 days already undergone alongwith enhanced fine sentence. Learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance upon an unreported Criminal Revision No. 443 of 2008 order passed on 06-08-2008, in that order Single Bench of this High Court while maintaining conviction of applicant under Section 325 of the IPC, modified his sentence of 6 month's rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone by him i.e. 43 days. Learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that the petitioners be given benefit of modification of sentence upto the period already undergone as petitioners Chamra and Parmeshwar served about 34 days of sentence. It is submitted that the Court may enhance the fine amount while reducing the sentence upto the period already undergone. 5. On the other hand learned counsel for the State opposed the revision petition and supported the impugned judgment and on the basis of impugned judgment submits that there was no free fight between both the parties, two different incidents happened in two different time and place, for which witnesses/victims of this case are tried in a separate criminal case by Court of JMFC. This incident subsequently happened, there was no direct continuation with these two incidents. There was no material omissions, contradictions and variations in the statement of witnesses since there was no free fight at the time of occurrence of this incident. This incident subsequently happened, there was no direct continuation with these two incidents. There was no material omissions, contradictions and variations in the statement of witnesses since there was no free fight at the time of occurrence of this incident. Two incidents took place at different time and place, so the petitioners cannot get the benefit of right of private defence and since there was no free fight in that moment, the benefit could not be given to the petitioners. Victims were tried in a separate criminal case, that has nothing to do with the present case. The battle axe and axe is a dangerous weapon it could be used for cutting and chopping since both are hard, sharp and heavy objects. The petitioners in sharing common intention caused grievous injuries by sharp edged such weapons and also the petitioners inflicted injuries by hard and blunt object to victim Rajaram. Dr. R.P. Nonhare (PW-1) noticed wound in his head, also many sharp wounds up to the muscle deep and sharp wound which resulted to cut off radius bone and ulna, other small bone are appearing with active bleeding, also the petitioners caused simple injury to three other victims namely Narmada (PW-4), Badarabai (PW-3) and Lalitabai (PW-5) by hard and blunt object and by other objects. The injuries found over the body of Rajaram clearly indicate that the injuries were grievous in nature. As per statement of witnesses, injuries inflicted voluntarily and caused by dangerous weapons. The battle axe and the axe is undisputedly, in their character and quality, come into category of dangerous weapon. In second phase of incident, the petitioners assaulted the victims, it shows their intentions to teach them a lesson. The victims, the petitioners and the witnesses are near relatives, they reside in a close vicinity. Their fields are connected, victims are injured witnesses, their testimony cannot be discarded. They sustained injuries at the time of incident. Since both parties are relatives, the statement of injured witnesses and other witnesses cannot be discredited only because they are relatives, reason that they are injured witnesses, other witnesses are also in close relation to the petitioners, so on the basis of relation, their testimony cannot be held unreliable. They sustained injuries at the time of incident. Since both parties are relatives, the statement of injured witnesses and other witnesses cannot be discredited only because they are relatives, reason that they are injured witnesses, other witnesses are also in close relation to the petitioners, so on the basis of relation, their testimony cannot be held unreliable. It is argued that the trial court considered the age of petitioner Abhay Ram and awarded him the sentence of till rising and fine sentence and since the other petitioners took active part, they assaulted with sharp, hard and heavy object, awarded them jail sentence upto three years and fine sentence which was duly considered by the appellate court and their sentence is reduced upto jail sentence of one year. In a case where the victims received so many and grievous hurt caused by the petitioners, rigorous imprisonment of one year cannot be termed as sentence of higher side. Offence under Section 326 of the IPC is punishable upto to imprisonment for life or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years. Offence is serious one, but the appellate court considered and awarded rigorous imprisonment for one year only. In the present case, the due consideration is taken by the appellate court, hence, it is prayed that the revision be dismissed and judgment and order of sentence awarded by the appellate court be affirmed. 6. This is a criminal revision against the judgment passed in a criminal appeal affirming the conviction and modifying the sentence awarded against the appellants/present petitioners by the trial court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, concurrent finding recorded by both the courts below are not liable to be set aside unless grave miscarriage of justice is shown, the petitioners are required to show strong ground to discredit the prosecution witnesses whose statement has been relied by the courts below after giving appropriate weightage to their statement. 7. In order to appreciate contentions of the parties and in the light of aforesaid proposition, I have examined the material available on the record. As regards the statement of witnesses, there are no material omissions, contradictions or variations in the statement of the witnesses. 7. In order to appreciate contentions of the parties and in the light of aforesaid proposition, I have examined the material available on the record. As regards the statement of witnesses, there are no material omissions, contradictions or variations in the statement of the witnesses. The statement of witnesses, injured witnesses, promptly lodged First Information Report and the injuries noticed by the doctor while conducting the MLC, the ocular evidence and the oral evidence are well supported by medical evidence. The petitioners namely Chamra and Parmeshwar with the help of sharp edged, hard, heavy objects and dangerous weapons in sharing common intention along with petitioner Abhay Ram caused grievous hurt to victim Rajaram and also caused, simple injuries to three other victims. Number of injuries found over body of victim Rajaram which was duly examined by the doctor, injuries found over other witnesses, nature of the injuries noticed in the body of Rajaram with active bleeding, the main injuries are upto muscle deep, joint of the wrist opened, radius bone, ulna and small bones were visible, and presence of other injuries found over vital portion of body of Rajaram, indicate the intention of the petitioners. This incident took place in second part of the dispute. There was no free fight, two distinct incidents took place at two different time. It cannot be held that element of free fight was there. Hence, there is no question of right of private defence. A few witnesses are tried for their role in some other incident separately, they were duly convicted by the trial court. Hence, learned counsel for the State submitted that they are unable to accept this contention that there was free fight. 8. I have perused the judgment impugned and record of the courts below. On close scrutiny of the evidence, there is no material omissions, contradictions and variations in the statement of the witnesses, both the parties are in near relation, injured witnesses' testimony could not be discredited only because of relationship, because they are also in near relation with the petitioners too. I am of the considered view that concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the courts below do not require any interference. 9. I am of the considered view that concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the courts below do not require any interference. 9. So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, petitioner Abhay Ram is awarded sentence of till rising of the court and fine sentence under Section 326 of the IPC and also till rising of the court under Section 323 of the IPC. Looking to his age, this sentence is not harsh. So far as sentence of other petitioners are concerned, the appellate court modified their sentence and instead of rigorous imprisonment for three years, the appellate court awarded jail sentence upto one year's rigorous imprisonment only, where the injuries are such it cannot be said that one year's rigorous imprisonment is on higher side. Learned Additional Sessions Judge considered the totality of the evidence and facts, and sentence so awarded by the appellate court is adequate and just which does not call for any interference. 10. Reliance is placed on behalf of the petitioners upon certain case laws aforementioned, in which Hari Kishan & State of Haryana vs. Sukhbir Singh (supra), Single Bench decision of Criminal Revision No. 1099 of 1996 and Criminal Revision No. 443 of 2008 are distinguishable since they are not upon Section 326 of the IPC. So far as the case law cited of George Pon Paul vs. Kanagalet and others (supra) is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the fact that fine amount has been deposited and the amount which was directed to be paid to victim has already been paid also long passage of time, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held it appropriate to restrict the period of sentence to the period already undergone. The said decision is based on altogether different facts of the case and also in this case no law is laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in a conviction under Section 326 of the IPC, it would be appropriate to restrict the period of sentence to the period already undergone, with this, this case law is distinguishable from the present revision. 11. For the foregoing reasons, conviction as recorded by the two courts below and the sentence recorded by the appellate court are sustainable and require no modification. 12. Consequently, the criminal revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Revision dismissed.