JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. On the basis of an Ejhar lodged by one Sri Krishna Mahato on 14.04.2005 before the Officer-in-charge Digboi Police Station to the effect that the petitioner had attacked the informant and injured him grievously on the night of 13.04.2005 at about 09:45 p.m. Digoboi Police Station case No. 54/2005 u/s 341/326 of IPC was registered against the petitioner and the police commenced the investigation and after completion of the investigation charge sheet was submitted before the Court. 3. On receipt of the summons, the petitioner appeared before the Court and the charge u/s 341/326 of IPC was framed and read over to the petitioner to which the petitioner having denied, trial had commenced. In support of the prosecution as many as 8 witnesses including the victim, Medical Officer and the Investigation Officer were examined and thereafter the petitioner was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C and the petitioner denied to adduce any defence witnesses. Learned Trial Court heard both the parties and thereafter vide judgment dated 08.04.2008 convicted the petitioner u/s 341 and 326 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month u/s 341 of I.P.C and rigorous imprisonment for 2 and ½ years u/s 326 of I.PC and also imposed a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for one month. Against the aforesaid judgment dated 08.04.2008, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia which was transferred to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) No. 2, Tinsukia and same was registered and numbered as Criminal Appeal no. 23(2) of 2008. Thereafter upon hearing the parties and perusing the records, the learned Appellate Court, vide judgment dated 25.02.2009 affirming the judgment of the Ld. Trial Court directed the petitioner to appear before the Trial Court within one month from the date of the judgment to serve out the sentence. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment, present revision petition has preferred on the grounds that both the Courts below committed gross illegality while arriving the aforesaid conclusions and the Learned Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective of law and facts and hence liable to quashed and set aside. 5. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment, present revision petition has preferred on the grounds that both the Courts below committed gross illegality while arriving the aforesaid conclusions and the Learned Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective of law and facts and hence liable to quashed and set aside. 5. I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. A.K. Gupta who has basically challenged the prosecution case on two counts that the identification of the accused is doubtful because occurrence took place at night hours at 10 p.m. so it was not possible on the part of the injured to identify the accused. On the next, there was no independent and/or eye witness to the occurrence even though occurrence took place at the road of the tea garden and other persons who were along with the accused was not identified. Thus, it has been contended that there being no supporting evidence to the case of the injured, the prosecution cannot claim that the charge has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt and learned Court below on wrong appreciation of evidence has held the accused guilty. 6. Learned Addl. PP Mr. P. Goswami, has however submitted that the accused was known to the injured being of same locality, it was not difficult on his part to identify the accused and there cannot be any doubt about the identification. On the next, having regard to the time of occurrence which was at 10 p.m. at night on the road of the tea garden, having no other independent and eye witness is not at all doubtful, whereas all the witnesses have supported the facts and circumstances of the case couple with the medical evidence. 7. On due appreciation of the matters on record and the impugned judgment, it reveals that the accused was known to the injured since childhood and both of are at same place and he has clearly identified the accused who made the serious assault on his face with a sharp cutting weapon, as a result of which he fell down sustaining grievous injury on his face and all his wearing clothes were stain with blood. Anyhow, the PW-1 with such injury arrived at the house of PW-2 and thereafter injured was taken to the hospital. He however, found that the cycle of PW1 was lying on the road. Anyhow, the PW-1 with such injury arrived at the house of PW-2 and thereafter injured was taken to the hospital. He however, found that the cycle of PW1 was lying on the road. The PW-4 and PW-7 (both are brother of the injured) although were not eye witness have however stated that they heard immediately after occurrence that PW-1 was assaulted by the accused while he was returning from the work place and he was taken to the IOC Hospital. It is stated that both of them know the accused since childhood being of same locality. PW-7 further stated that about 10/11 Nos. of teeth of PW-1 were cut in the incident. 8. PW-5 also stated that on the day of occurrence PW-1 went to their house with profuse bleeding and he put a cloth over his mouth. After informing his brother, he took PW-1 to Garden Hospital in a Thela but as there was serious bleeding so he was taken to IOC Hospital and he was not in a position to talk when he first went to there to his house. It is stated that he knows the accused as he is the resident of their vicinity. 9. PW-3 was admitted at the IOC Hospital as patient on the day of occurrence while the PW-1 was also admitted to his next bed and he has stated that he saw cut injury on the face of the PW-1, however he has no idea as to how the incident took place. The PW-6 is the medical officer of the IOC who examined the PW-1 injured in IOC Hospital on 13.04.2005 at 11.47 p.m. and found one incise wound size 7 x 1 inches x muscle deep and his upper incisor teeth (all front teeth) fell and anterior surface of the tongue was incise, ½ inch x ¼ x muscle deep with bleeding. He gave a findings that injury was grievous caused by sharp weapon and dangerous to life vide Ext-2 is his report. He has stated that he treated the victim for the teeth. He has specifically stated that such an injury cannot be caused by falling on a sharp object. 10. Lastly PW-8 is the I/O who investigated the case and finally submitted charge sheet and he found the injured admitted in the IOC Hospital. He has stated that he treated the victim for the teeth. He has specifically stated that such an injury cannot be caused by falling on a sharp object. 10. Lastly PW-8 is the I/O who investigated the case and finally submitted charge sheet and he found the injured admitted in the IOC Hospital. He however, did not seize the blood stain cloths of the injured nor the weapon of offence. 11. The learned trial Court as well as the revisonal Court as fully appreciated the evidence on record and hold that the evidence of PW-1 is not at all doubtful as regards the identification, as because the accused was known to the victim since earlier. It was also appreciated that there will be no difficulty to identify known person even in night hours. None having of independent witness at the odd hours of night is found natural and on the other hand nothing emerges from the record as regards false implication of the accused. The evidence of the injured remained consistent throughout the evidence without any material omission, contradiction so as to discard his evidence. The evidence of an injured can be accepted without further corroboration if found convincing and reliable. Question of corroboration will come when there is some sort of doubt over such evidence. In the given case there being no any earlier hostile relation or enmity between the parties, it denuded the false implication. Evidence of the injured also supported by the facts and circumstances of the case and medical evidence also corroborated about the injury sustained by him which is grievous in nature. The learned Court below having regard to the definition of 320 CrPC come to a conclusion that the fracture or dislocation of a bone or teeth comes under the grievous hurt and on the basis of the evidence of M/O coupled with the other evidence on record held the accused guilty u/s 341/326 IPC and has convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. No any irregularity and illegality is found in such finding, to interfere. The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed some leniency as the incident is of 2005 and the accused has suffered a lot while in the legal battle. The learned Addl. PP also acceded to such submissions. 12. No any irregularity and illegality is found in such finding, to interfere. The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed some leniency as the incident is of 2005 and the accused has suffered a lot while in the legal battle. The learned Addl. PP also acceded to such submissions. 12. Having regard to such submissions and the facts and the occurrence is of more than a decade, while maintaining the conviction, the sentence u/s 326 IPC is reduced to R/I for 1 year with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and sentence u/s 341 IPC will remain the same. Period of detention already undergone shall be set of. 13. Revision stands allowed with the modification as indicated above. Return the LCR along with the copy of judgment.