JUDGEMENT AND ORDER : This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.03.2007 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dhubri in Crl. Appeal No. 7(4)/2006 affirming the judgment and order dated 02.11.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhubri in G.R. Case No. 30/2001 convicting the accused petitioner under section 326 of the IPC and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to suffer imprisonment for 3 months. However, the learned Sessions Judge, although maintained the conviction of the accused petitioner under section 326 IPC but, reduced the sentence of imprisonment to 2 years without interfering with the fine imposed against the accused petitioner by the trial court. 2. The case projected by the prosecution, sans unnecessary details, is that on 17.03.2001 at about 6.30 AM at Kalapani under Mankachar Police Station in the Dhubri district, the accused petitioner Ripon Mollah along with others caused grievous injuries on the stomach of Momin Hussain with a dagger. Mankachar Police Station Case No. 30/2001 was registered on the basis of the FIR lodged by the father of the victim. The Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against the accused Ripon Mollah, Abdul Mannan and Sahinur under sections 326/506/34 of the IPC. 3. The learned trial court convicted the accused petitioner under section 326 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment and to pay fine as stated above. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhubri with reduction of sentence to 2 years from 3 years. 4. Heard Mr. B.M. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. N.K. Kalita, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam. 5. Inviting my attention to the impugned judgment the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that there was concurrent finding of facts by the learned courts below and it is not open to the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence on record to upset the concurrent findings. It is a settled legal proposition that ordinarily it is not open to the High Court when there is concurrent finding of facts to interfere in its revisional jurisdiction, unless it is shown that the evidence on record was misread or misinterpreted by the courts below. 6. It is a settled legal proposition that ordinarily it is not open to the High Court when there is concurrent finding of facts to interfere in its revisional jurisdiction, unless it is shown that the evidence on record was misread or misinterpreted by the courts below. 6. Keeping in view the above principle while going through the evidence on record particularly the evidence of the alleged victim Momin and his sister P.W. 4 Mustt. Yasmin @ Baby there is hardly any room for doubt that the accused Ripon Mollah stabbed the victim Momin Hussain @ Munna with a dagger on his abdomen as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries. Evidence of P.W. 2, Momin @ Munna Hussain is that the accused petitioner Ripon Mollah stabbed him with a dagger on his stomach as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries on his stomach which prevented him to follow his ordinary pursuits for 22/23 days. In spite of vigorous examination by the defence his testimony could not be shaken and almost remained intact and un-rebutted. His evidence is fully corroborated by P.W, 4 who is his elder sister and it appears from her evidence that she also accompanied her brother at the relevant time and she saw the accused stabbing her brother on his abdomen with a dagger. The evidence of these two witnesses is also corroborated by P.W. 3, Hamed Ali, father-in-law of P.W. 4 and although he had not seen the occurrence, he heard about the same from his daughter P.W. 4 that the accused stabbed the victim Momin. P.W. 1, Ismail Hussain, father of the victim noticed the injury on the abdomen and according to him, the intestines were coming out from the abdomen and although the contradiction was sought to be introduced in his evidence but, the medical officer who examined the injured confirmed that on examination he found intestines coming out from the injured portion of the stomach and consequently the contradiction introduced was rightly nullified by the learned trial court as well as the appellate court. 7. Although the defence took the plea of “alibi” in his defence under section 313 Cr.P.C., on careful sifting of the stand taken by the accused and the evidence on record, the defence plea was rejected by the courts below. 7. Although the defence took the plea of “alibi” in his defence under section 313 Cr.P.C., on careful sifting of the stand taken by the accused and the evidence on record, the defence plea was rejected by the courts below. Although the defence tried to prove through the evidence of D.W. 1 and D.W. 2 that the accused petitioner was not in the scene of the crime on the day of occurrence and he was at a distance of about 60/75 kms away from his house to attend circumcision function in the house of his maternal uncle but, it appears that the function took place only on 17.03.2001 and according to the accused he went to the house of his maternal uncle on 13.03.2001. The plea of ‘alibi’ was disbelieved by the trial court as well as the appellate court holding that there was no justifiable reason given by the accused to go to the house of his maternal uncle on 13.03.2001 to attend the function which was held on 17.03.2001. Moreover from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses it is established that it was the accused appellant who caused injuries to the injured and they have no reason to falsely implicate him in the case. It is unbelievable that they would implicate the accused by sparring the actual culprits who had committed the crime. The plea was rightly rejected by the courts below which calls for no interference by this revisional court. 8. Mr. B.M. Choudhury learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner submits that at the relevant time the accused petitioner was aged about 21 years and he has been subjected to protracted trial and considering this aspect a lenient view may be taken while passing sentence against him. 9. Considering the nature of the offence committed by the accused petitioner, I am not inclined to invoke the provisions of sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act or section 360 of the Cr.P.C.. However, considering age, antecedent etc of the accused, the sentence of imprisonment passed by the learned appellate court is reduced from rigorous imprisonment for 2 years to rigorous imprisonment for 1 year without interfering with the sentence of fine imposed against him. The period already undergone by him in connection with this case be set off. 10. With the above modification of the sentence the revision stands dismissed. 11. The period already undergone by him in connection with this case be set off. 10. With the above modification of the sentence the revision stands dismissed. 11. The accused petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial court immediately to serve out the sentence. 12. Send down the LCR.