JUDGMENT : This appeal has been filed by the appellants/accused Nos.2 and 3 as against the conviction and sentence, dated 05.12.2007, made in S.C. No. 120 of 2000, by the learned Third Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Madurai. 2. There are totally six accused in this case. All the accused were convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court for various offences and for some offences, they have been acquitted. Out of them, the first accused is no more. The appellants/A-2 and A-3 stood convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment as detailed hereunder:- Conviction U/s. Sentence Fine amount A-2 148 IPC To undergo one year rigorous imprisonment To pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment. 324 IPC - To pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment. 326 IPC To undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. To pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo 2 months simple imprisonment. A-3 147 IPC To undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. To pay a fine of Rs.250/-, in default, to undergo two weeks simple imprisonment. 325 IPC To undergo six months rigorous imprisonment To pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment. 323 IPC - To pay a fine of Rs.250/-, in default, to undergo two weeks simple imprisonment. (All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.) 3. The brief case of the prosecution is as follows: (i) On 07.11.1999 at about 04.30 p.m., when the defacto complainant (P.W.1) was standing outside his house, due to previous enmity, A-1 along with other co-accused came with deadly weapons and A-2, who armed with metal rod, attacked P.W.1 and thereby, caused injury on the back of his body. A-3 armed with stick and broke his right middle finger and caused grievous injury to him. P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 had seen the occurrence and they were also attacked by the accused. P.W.7-Medical Officer, attached to the Government Hospital, had treated P.W.1 and noted 1 x 1/2 x 1/2 cm lacerated wound on his right side back and also found pain and swelling over the right middle finger and in this regard, he has issued Ex.P.4-Accident Register on the same day. He has also treated P.W.2 (Mariyayee) and P.W.3 (Valli) and issued Exs.P.5 and 7. He has also treated P.W.2 (Mariyayee) and P.W.3 (Valli) and issued Exs.P.5 and 7. He has also treated P.W.4-Tamilarasi and found contusion 3 x 3 cm over the right parietal region and issued Ex.P.6-Accident Register. (ii) P.W.9, the Investigating Officer conducted investigation and prepared an observation mahazar (Ex.P.2) and rough sketch (Ex.P.9). He has examined all the witnesses and also recovered M.Os.1 to 4 under Ex.P.3 Athatchi. On completion of investigation, he has laid a final report (Ex.P.10) as against the accused. (iii) Based on the evidence and materials, the learned Trial Judge found A-2 and A-3 guilty for the offences as referred to above. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that there are discrepancies in the evidence and the material objects used in the alleged occurrence were not seized. Further, the prosecution has failed to prove the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 325 and 326 IPC. Hence, the learned counsel prays for allowing the appeal. 5. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 6. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the prosecution witnesses have clearly spoken about the nature of altercation and the injuries sustained by the victim. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 7. I have carefully perused the materials and the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 produced before this Court. 8. Admittedly, there was a previous enmity between the first accused and P.W.1. Due to that, on the date of occurrence, A-1 (since deceased), A-2 and A-3 along with the other co-accused came with deadly weapons, viz., metal rod and wooden log and attacked P.Ws.1 to 4 and thereby, caused injuries on them. P.Ws.1 to 4 in their evidence have clearly spoken about the manner in which they have been attacked. The evidence of the Medical Officer clearly substantiates the nature of injuries sustained by P.Ws.1 to 4. Therefore, merely because the Material Objects in this regard have not been seized, that cannot be a ground to disbelieve the entire prosecution case. The injured immediately rushed to the hospital and the Medical Officer has seen the nature of injuries and in fact, the Medical Officer (P.W.7), in his evidence, has clearly deposed that he has issued Ex.P.4 on seeing x-ray and report and found that the injury sustained by P.W.1 is grievous in nature. The injured immediately rushed to the hospital and the Medical Officer has seen the nature of injuries and in fact, the Medical Officer (P.W.7), in his evidence, has clearly deposed that he has issued Ex.P.4 on seeing x-ray and report and found that the injury sustained by P.W.1 is grievous in nature. Therefore, I am of the view that when the Expert has seen the injury at the first instance, that itself is a direct evidence as far as the injury is concerned. The evidence of the Medical Officer has not only proved that the injured has suffered fracture but also goes to show that the x-ray was already taken in the hospital and P.W.7 has confirmed the fracture on that day itself. In such circumstances, I am of the view that once the Expert has seen the injuries sustained immediately after the occurrence and his evidence proves the said fact, I am of the view that no other evidence is required to prove the injury. 9. On over all analysis of the entire facts, I am of the view that there is no serious discrepancy found out in the prosecution case and accordingly, the finding of the Trial Court holding the guilty of the appellants does not require any interference. 10. However, taking into consideration of the fact that the alleged occurrence took place in the year 1999 and ordinary petty quarrel led to the alleged occurrence, I am inclined to reduce the major sentences to four months. 11. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed in the following terms:- (a) The conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court under Section 324 IPC against the first appellant/A-2 and under Section 323 IPC against the second appellant/A-3 are hereby confirmed. (b) The conviction passed by the Trial Court under Sections 148 and 326 IPC against the first appellant/A-2 and under Sections 147 and 325 IPC against the second appellant/A-3 is hereby confirmed. However, the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial Court alone is reduced to four months rigorous imprisonment for the above said offences. In respect of fine amount, the judgment of the Trial Court is hereby confirmed. (c) All these sentences shall run concurrently. The sentence already undergone by the appellants/A-2 and A-3 shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. 12. In respect of fine amount, the judgment of the Trial Court is hereby confirmed. (c) All these sentences shall run concurrently. The sentence already undergone by the appellants/A-2 and A-3 shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. 12. The Trial Court is directed to take steps to incarcerate the appellants/A-2 and A-3 in prison, so as to serve out the remaining period of sentence, if any. 13. The Legal Services Committee, attached to the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai, has to pay the fees as per the entitlement, to Dr. N. Shanmugavel, Legal Aid Counsel.