JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. This is a Criminal Revision Petition, filed under Section 397 of the Cr.PC, challenging the legality and propriety of the judgment and order, dated 08.10.2007, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Cachar, Silchar, in Criminal Appeal No.11/2007 dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment and order, dated 11.07.2007, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar, in GR Case No.1838/2001, sentencing the accused petitioner to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 (three) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- , and in default, Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 (three) months under Section 326 of the IPC. 2. Heard Mr. IH Laskar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Also heard Mr. NJ Dutta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State of Assam. 3. The case of the prosecution is that, on 19.07.2001, at about 7 pm, the injured Subhash Kairi went to visit his kitchen garden. There he was attacked by the accused/petitioner Ashish Kairi and Ramdulal Kairi, voluntarily causing grievous hurt to the person of Subhash Kairi by a sharp cutting weapon. The victim raised hue and cry, following which, nearby people assembled there and the accused petitioner fled away from the place of occurrence. The victim was taken to Silchar Medical College and Hospital, where he had undergone medical treatment for 1 month and 17 days. Thereafter, his brother lodged the FIR stating therein the cause of delay in filing the FIR. The cause of delay in filing the FIR was attributed to the fact that the informant was busy in medical treatment of his brother/injured. 4. On receipt of the FIR, on the above fact, the Dholai Police Station registered a case, being Dholai Police Station Case No. 134/2001, under Section 326 of the IPC. The Police arrested the accused petitioner, forwarded him to judicial custody, and after completion of the investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the accused petitioner, Ashish Kairi, under Section 326 of the IPC. On appearance of the accused petitioner, a formal charge under Section 326 of the IPC was framed by the learned Trial Court, to which the accused petitioner pleaded innocence. 5. In this case, the prosecution examined as many as 6 (six) witnesses, including the injured/victim and the Investigating Police Officer as well as the Doctor. 6. On appearance of the accused petitioner, a formal charge under Section 326 of the IPC was framed by the learned Trial Court, to which the accused petitioner pleaded innocence. 5. In this case, the prosecution examined as many as 6 (six) witnesses, including the injured/victim and the Investigating Police Officer as well as the Doctor. 6. After closure of the prosecution witnesses, the statement of the accused petitioner was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.PC. In his such statement, he appears to have denied the accusation levelled against him and rather pleaded innocence. 7. The learned Trial Court framed a point for determination, whether the accused petitioner Ashish Kairi, voluntarily caused grievous injuries to the person of Subhash Kairi/injured with a sharp cutting weapon. 8. In the instant case, the PW4, being the injured, is the most vital witness. PW4 is the vital witness also on the ground that the other witnesses appeared at the place of occurrence, only after hearing the alarm raised by the him, and therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, PW4/injured is the witness, who can speak about the truth in respect of the prosecution case. Other non-official witnesses, examined by the prosecution can speak about the subsequent happenings in the case and as to the state in which the injured/PW4 was found by them. 9. The evidence of the PW4 makes it appear that he went to his kitchen garden at about 7:30 pm on the date of occurrence. The accused petitioner suddenly appeared there with a dao in his hand and attempted to inflict a dao blow on his person, which the PW4 resisted by his left hand, resulting the blow falling on his palm and adjoining finger area of his left hand. 10. The learned Trial Court also noticed, on being exhibited, the little finger of the accused petitioner severed. The evidence of the PW4 also reveals that nearby people assembled at the place of occurrence, after hearing the alarm raised by him, and on arrival, such nearby persons, immediately took him to the Silchar Medical College and Hospital, where he had undergone treatment for 1 month and 17 days. The PW4 could identify the accused petitioner as he was holding a torch light at the relevant point of time. 11. The PW4 could identify the accused petitioner as he was holding a torch light at the relevant point of time. 11. The PW3, as appears from his evidence, found the injured lying on the ground on his appearance at the place of occurrence. 12. There is no evidence on record to suggest that there was any other person with the injured at the relevant point of time, meaning thereby, that the injured/PW4 is only the best witness to speak about the person involved in causing injuries to his person. 13. PW1 is the informant. He also appeared at the place of occurrence hearing the alarm raised by the PW4/victim and on his such appearance at the place of occurrence, he saw the accused petitioner leaving the place of occurrence with a dao in his hand. 14. The PW2 in his evidence also deposed that after coming to the place of occurrence, he found the injured Subhash Kairi there and noticed that the accused petitioner was fleeing from the place of occurrence. 15. The defence cross-examined the aforesaid 4 (four)witnesses, i.e., PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4, and even during such cross-examination, the evidence on the core issue, that the PW4/injured was lying on the ground with injuries on his person and that PW1, PW2 and PW3 saw the accused petitioner fleeing from the place of occurrence remained unassailed. 16. The evidence of PW4 is very specific that the accused petitioner caused injuries on his person. 17. The medical officer, who examined the PW4 has been examined as PW5 and his evidence is very specific in respect of the injuries. He opined that the injury Nos. 3 to 5 may have been caused due to falling upon a heavy object and other injuries, i.e., injury Nos. 1 and 2, sustained by the PW4 were grievous in nature caused by sharp object. He found amputation of the left little finger of the person of the victim/PW4 and also opined that the injuries were fresh at the time of examination of the victim. The injuries sustained by the PW4/victim, as stated by him in his evidence, received corroboration from the medical evidence of PW5. The Doctor found the injuries at Sl. Nos. 1 to 3 of his report, simple and lacerated. 18. The injuries sustained by the PW4/victim, as stated by him in his evidence, received corroboration from the medical evidence of PW5. The Doctor found the injuries at Sl. Nos. 1 to 3 of his report, simple and lacerated. 18. The weapon of offence, i.e., the dao was recovered from the house of the accused petitioner and was seized by the Investigating Police Officer after four days from the date of occurrence. So, the consistent evidence and corroborative evidence of PWs, particularly the evidence of PW4, leaves no doubt in the mind of this Court, that it was none but the accused petitioner who had committed the offence of causing grievous hurt on the person of the PW4. 19. The learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of hearing, has argued that the dao recovered from the house of the accused petitioner, was without blood stain, and as such, it could not be said that the seized dao was used by the accused petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. 20. But the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court of Additional Sessions Judge has taken care of this argument made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and indicated in both the judgments that it is unlikely to get blood in the seized dao, in view of the fact that the same was seized after four days from the date of occurrence. 21. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the torch light, which was used by the PW4/injured at the relevant point of time and which helped him in identifying the accused petitioner was not seized by the Police. 22. In the considered view of this Court, this does not affect the consistent evidence of the witnesses and the seizure or non-seizure of the said torch light will have no bearing in ascertaining the fact of the case. 23. Assuming for a moment that seizure of the torch light would have some bearing in the case, yet for inaction or improper action on the part of the Investigating Police Officer, no fault could be found with the injured. Lapse in the investigation cannot be allowed to take decisive position for holding a prosecution story, true or untrue. 24. 23. Assuming for a moment that seizure of the torch light would have some bearing in the case, yet for inaction or improper action on the part of the Investigating Police Officer, no fault could be found with the injured. Lapse in the investigation cannot be allowed to take decisive position for holding a prosecution story, true or untrue. 24. In view of the above discussions, it does not appear that the concurrent finding of the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, need interference by this Court, in exercise of its revisional power, as decisions rendered by both the Courts below are based on evidence on record. Therefore, the order of conviction of the accused petitioner is upheld. 25. The case was initially filed in the year 2001, the judgment was delivered by the learned Trial Court on 11.07.2007 and then by the learned Appellate Court of the Additional Sessions Judge on 08.10.2007 and thereafter, the case is before this High Court by way of this revision petition, challenging the legality and propriety of the judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below. 26. It has already been found that the judgments passed by the learned Courts Below are based on evidence on record and need no interference, so far the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court of Additional Sessions Judge is concerned. 27. As far as the sentence is concerned, in the considered view of this Court, considering the background, facts of the case, the substantive sentence is reduced from Rigorous Imprisonment of 3 (three) years to 1 (one) year and the fine is enhanced to Rs. 3,000/-. Accordingly, the accused petitioner is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 (one) year and a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for another 3 (three) months. 28. Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. 29. The accused revision petitioner will surrender before the learned Trial Court for serving the sentence within one month from today. The period of detention of the revision petitioner in custody during investigation and trial, if any, is set off against the aforesaid sentence. 30. Send down the LCR along with the copy of this judgment.