JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) The accused petitioner stood convicted u/s 447/325 of the IPC and sentenced to R.I. for 1 (One) month u/s 447 and 2 years u/s 325 of the IPC by the learned CJM, Morigaon in G.R. Case No.784/2004. The judgment of the learned trial court was affirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge in Crl. A. No. 39/2005. Hence this revision. 2. Heard Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel for the accused petitioner and also heard Mr. N. K. Kalita, learned Addl. PP, Assam. 3. There was concurrent finding of facts arrived at by the courts and ordinary it is not open to the High Court to interfere with the concurrent finding of the facts of the courts below by re-appreciating the evidence on record in its revisional jurisdiction. 4. In the present case to substantiate the case, the prosecution examined 6 witnesses including the official witnesses. The accused petitioner pleaded innocence in his defence statement recorded u/s 313 CrPC. 5. Of the 6 witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW 5, Ilias Ali is the injured of the case, PW 1 Alauddin in the first informant, PW 2, Anjuma Begum is a neighbor, PW 4 is the medical officer who treated the injured and PW 6 the IO. Except the injured other witnesses could not anything regarding the occurrence and what they have deposed before the trial court was hearsay evidence. The first informant Alauddin lodged the FIR on the very day of the occurrence on getting the information from the injured that he was assaulted by the accused petitioner. He heard about the incident while he was in the market and when he visited the hospital he saw his father in law with fractured hand in the hospital and he was informed that the accused petitioner had assaulted him. The FIR was promptly lodged and there is no reason to suspect embellishment or afterthought. PW 5 is the injured himself who has testified before the court that while he was at his home, the accused petitioner who is his own nephew came with a rod and assaulted him and it appears from his evidence that he was assaulted by the accused for his refusal to give his land to him. It is also in the evidence of PW 5 that one “Koli Chowali”(Black Girl) took him to the hospital. It is also in the evidence of PW 5 that one “Koli Chowali”(Black Girl) took him to the hospital. Even though this girl has not been examined that cannot be a ground to reject the testimony of the injured who is found to be wholly reliable and trustworthy, having no reason to falsely implicate his own nephew in the case. His evidence is also amply corroborated by PW 4, the doctor, who examined him in the Civil Hospital, Morigaon and he proved the injuries sustained by the injured and clearly testified that the fracture injury on the left hand was caused by blunt weapon. 6. The defence totally failed to shake the evidence of PW 5, the injured in cross examination and apart from putting a suggestion that the accused had not assaulted him, no question by way of cross examination was put to him and his entire evidence of assault on him by the accused concerned was un-rebutted. 7. The un-rebutted evidence of the injured coupled with the evidence of the first informant and the evidence of the doctor proved that the accused petitioner caused grievous injury to the injured. 8. Having regard to the submission advanced by the learned counsel and having regard to the facts and circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the learned Sessions Court and as such, the judgment is affirmed. 9. Mr. Ali, learned counsel for the accused submits that the accused is a ricksaw puller by profession and living from hand to mouth and he has a large family to support. The occurrence took place in the year 2005 and more than 12 years has already elapsed from the date of commission of the crime and it is also submitted that the dispute must have been resolved in the meantime by the nephew and the uncle and considering all aspects a lenient view may be taken. 10. In view of above and considering the age and antecedents, the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that already enough delay has been caused and the accused petitioner has been subsided to protracted the trial I of the view that justice would be met if he is imprisoned for the term already undergone by him in jail and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, to imprisonment for another 6 months. Fine if realize shall be paid to the victim as compensation. 11. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed with the modification of sentence. 12. Send down the LCR forthwith. 13. The accused petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial court to serve out the sentence within one month.