JUDGMENT : 1. Mr. Faruque Ansari, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has argued both the cases at length. 2. Heard Ms. Mahua Palit and Ms. Priya Shrestha, the learned counsels appearing on behalf of Opposite Party-State in Cr. Revision No. 853 of 2014 and Cr. Revision No. 986 of 2014 respectively. 3. These criminal revision applications have been filed against the judgment dated 21.07.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Palamau at Daltonganj in Cr. Appeal No. 67/2011 whereby and whereunder the judgment passed by the learned trial court was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed. 4. The petitioners had preferred the criminal appeal against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 21.04.2011 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj in G.R. No. 312 of 2002/ T.R. No. 156 of 2011 (arising out of Chainpur P.S. Case No. 23/2002 dated 13.03.2002) whereby and whereunder the petitioners and one Lailoon Ansari were convicted for the offence under Section 341/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner-Sahabuddin Ansari was also convicted for the offence under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioner-Allauddin Ansari was also convicted for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the petitioners and Lailoon Ansari were sentenced to pay fine of Rs.200/- each for the offence under Section 341/34 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, each of them was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 7 days. The petitioner-Sahabuddin Ansari was also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioner-Allauddin Ansari was also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for nine months for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Arguments on behalf of the petitioner(s) 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned judgments are perverse, inasmuch as, there is contradiction between medical evidence and the evidence of the victim-informant. He also submitted that the victim has stated about assault by ‘tangi’ due to which she suffered injury in her hand, but as per the medical report, there is no such cut injury and the injury found is said to have been caused by hard and blunt substance. He also submitted that the victim has stated about assault by ‘tangi’ due to which she suffered injury in her hand, but as per the medical report, there is no such cut injury and the injury found is said to have been caused by hard and blunt substance. He also submitted that there is no eye-witness to the occurrence and the investigating officer of the case has also not been examined. He further submitted that the informant of the case who is also the victim had herself deposed that there was enmity between the informant party and the accused persons. The learned counsel also submitted that one co-accused namely, Lailoon Ansari was convicted only under Section 341 of Indian Penal Code and a fine amount of Rs. 200/- was imposed upon him and similar view may be taken in relation to the present petitioners also. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned courts below ought to have released the petitioners after due admonition under Section 360 of Code of Criminal Procedure as it was the their first conviction and the offence was neither anti-social nor anti-national in nature. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, some sympathetic view may be taken, so far as the sentence of the petitioners are concerned in view of the fact that the FIR is of 13.03.2002 and more than 18 years have already elapsed and the petitioners do not have any criminal antecedent. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners are also ready to deposit some fine amount, if their sentences are modified, and the fine amount may be remitted to the informant of the case by way of victim compensation. Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State 8. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of Opposite Party-State opposed the prayer and submitted that there are consistent findings recorded by the learned courts below and even if there is no eye-witness, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, including the victim-informant, are consistent and reliable. They also submitted that P.W.-3 is the first person who had come to the victim-informant immediately upon hearing hulla and the victim-informant had herself disclosed her about the assault made by the present petitioners and Lailoon Ansari and also about the fracture on her hand. They also submitted that P.W.-3 is the first person who had come to the victim-informant immediately upon hearing hulla and the victim-informant had herself disclosed her about the assault made by the present petitioners and Lailoon Ansari and also about the fracture on her hand. They further submitted that in view of consistent findings recorded by the learned courts below, no interference is called for. Findings of this Court 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon going through the impugned judgments and the lower court records of the case, this Court finds that the prosecution case is based on the written report of the Informant namely, Mofida Bibi lodged on 13.03.2002 alleging inter-alia is that on 13.03.2002 at about 12 noon, she was present in her house and in the meantime, Khan Ansari was going alongwith his buffalo and in course of crossing the door of informant, the buffalo dragged the bean plant, upon which the informant’s son namely, Subhan Ansari told him to cross quickly, on which Khan Ansari abused him and went to his house. Thereafter, the petitioners and Lailoon Ansari came there with common intention, Sahabuddin Ansari was armed with lathi and Allauddin Ansari was armed with tangi. Lailoon Ansari caught hold the hairs of the informant and Sahabuddin Ansari assaulted on her left wrist causing serious injury and Allauddin Ansari waved his tangi which was stopped by her right hand which caused cut injury on her right palm and Lailoon Absari assaulted her by slaps and she fell down. On hearing hulla, some villagers came there, but the accused persons fled away. 10. On the basis of the written report, the case was registered as Chainpur P.S. Case No. 23/2002 dated 13.03.2002 under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and Lailoon Ansari. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against them and thereafter, cognizance of the offence was taken against them under the same sections. 11. On 09.08.2002, charges under Sections 325, 504, 323, 341, 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the petitioners which were read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 12. In course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether 6 witnesses. P.W.-1 is Habib Mian, P.W.-2 is Idrish Ansari, P.W.-3 is Rabina Bibi, P.W.-4 is Dr. 12. In course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether 6 witnesses. P.W.-1 is Habib Mian, P.W.-2 is Idrish Ansari, P.W.-3 is Rabina Bibi, P.W.-4 is Dr. Kamlesh Kumar Sinha, P.W.-5 is Mofida Bibi who is the injured Informant-victim of the case and P.W.-6 is Abdul Rahman who has been declared hostile by the prosecution. The prosecution exhibited the injury report of informant-victim as Exhibit-1 and her X-ray report as Exhibit-2. 13. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused persons including the petitioners were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. on 01.09.2009 wherein they simply denied the incriminating substances put to them and claimed to be innocent. The defence examined one witness namely, Md. Hanif as D.W.-1. 14. This Court finds that the learned trial court considered the oral and documentary evidences of the prosecution as well as oral evidence of the defence and after scrutiny, found that the defence has not denied the place of occurrence and as such, the prosecution has been able to prove the place of occurrence. The learned trial court acquitted all the accused persons from the offence under Sections 504 of the Indian Penal Code; acquitted Lailoon Ansari and Allauddin Ansari from the offence under Sections 325 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted Lailoon Ansari and Sahabuddin Ansari from offence under Sections 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted them as mentioned above. 15. The learned appellate court also discussed the prosecution evidences as well as the defence evidence in detail, considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners and recorded its finding at Paras-17, 18 and 19 of its judgment which reads as under: “17. On perusal, it appears that P.W.-5 has supported the case of prosecution and P.Ws. 1, 2 & 3 have also corroborated the injury on the person of informant (P.W.-5) and P.W.-4 Doctor has also supported the injury on the person of the informant (P.W.-5). Although some contradictions appears minor have come during the evidence of the witnesses on record, but it is settled that minor discrepancy due to lapse of memory is immaterial. It is also settled that evidence of related and partisan witness cannot be rejected outright by reason of relation and interestedness and it has to be scrutinized with caution. 18. Although some contradictions appears minor have come during the evidence of the witnesses on record, but it is settled that minor discrepancy due to lapse of memory is immaterial. It is also settled that evidence of related and partisan witness cannot be rejected outright by reason of relation and interestedness and it has to be scrutinized with caution. 18. From the evidence of P.W.-1 to P.W.-5, whole evidence appears credible and trustworthy and there are nothing, but supporting and corroborative evidence of prosecution and their testimonies are found to be cogent, convincing and trustworthy and it is also well settled that in a criminal trial, credible evidence of even a solitary witness form the basis of conviction. 19. From the careful scrutiny of evidence of witnesses, it appears that the eye witness of the instant case appears credible and wholly reliable and there is sufficient evidence as discussed above in order to establish the charge for the offence punishable u/s 341 r.w. 34 of IPC against the both accused/appellants, charge for the offence punishable u/s 325 of IPC against appellant no.1 and charge for the offence punishable u/s 324 of IPC against appellant no.2. In my opinion, the learned S.D.J.M. has meticulously considered the evidence of prosecution and contentions of defence in proper perspective and accordingly, rightly convicted the accused/appellant namely, Sahabuddin Ansari for the offence u/s 341/34 & 325 of IPC and accused/appellant Allauddin Ansari for the offence u/s 341/34 & 324 of IPC and rightly passed the sentence.” 16. This Court finds that the learned courts below have given consistent and concurrent finding of facts after considering the evidences on record, including the evidence of the informant- victim who had disclosed the incident to P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 who immediately attended her upon hulla. The learned courts below have also properly appreciated the medical evidence as well as one defence witness D.W.-1 who deposed that quarrel of the informant was going with someone and he had gone there for rescue. 17. This Court finds that the Informant-victim (P.W.-5) deposed that on the day of occurrence, she was at her home at 10-11 A.M. and when Khan Ansari was passing with his buffalo, the buffalo ate the bean plant of the informant upon which the informant’s son asked Khan Ansari to take away the buffalo quickly and Khan Ansari went away abusing. This Court finds that the Informant-victim (P.W.-5) deposed that on the day of occurrence, she was at her home at 10-11 A.M. and when Khan Ansari was passing with his buffalo, the buffalo ate the bean plant of the informant upon which the informant’s son asked Khan Ansari to take away the buffalo quickly and Khan Ansari went away abusing. Thereafter, Sahabuddin Ansari armed with lathi, Allauddin Ansari armed with tangi and lailoon Ansari came there. Lailoon Ansari caught hold of the hair of the informant and Sahabuddin Ansari assaulted the informant on her wrist causing its fracture and Allauddin Ansari waved tangi due to which she received cut injury on her right palm and on hearing hulla, the villagers came there and rescued her. This Court finds that the Informant (P.W.-5) has fully supported her version in written report and has proved the date, time, place and the manner of the occurrence and has also identified the petitioners in court. Therefore, this Court is of the view that non-examination of the investigating officer does not affect the prosecution case adversely in any way and no prejudice has been caused to the defense due to non-examination of the investigating officer of the case. 18. This Court further finds that on 13.03.2002 at 11.30 A.M., the doctor (P.W.-4) examined the injured informant and found fracture of lower limb of left ulnar bone, one lacerated wound 1” X ¼ “muscle deep on lower middle portion of right-hand palm and bruise and swelling on her back. This witness opined that the Injury No.1 is grievous in nature, whereas the Injury Nos.2 and 3 are simple in nature. Accordingly, this Court finds that P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 and the injury report of the informant given by P.W.-4 (doctor) have fully corroborated the case of the informant-victim who has deposed to have received injuries at the hands of the petitioners. The informant of the case has been thoroughly cross-examined and the evidence remained consistent. 19. Accordingly, this Court finds that P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 and the injury report of the informant given by P.W.-4 (doctor) have fully corroborated the case of the informant-victim who has deposed to have received injuries at the hands of the petitioners. The informant of the case has been thoroughly cross-examined and the evidence remained consistent. 19. So far as the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners that no cut injury was found on the palm of the victim although she had stated that she suffered cut injury is concerned, this Court finds that as per the injury report one lacerated would 1” x ¼” muscle deep on lower middle portion of right hand palm was found which as per the informant was a result of tangi blow and certainly tangi could hit from back side as well. 20. This Court is of the considered view that there is no scope for re-appreciation of evidences in revisional jurisdiction and the contradictions as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not material contradictions to draw any conclusion of illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioners does not call for any interference and the judgement of conviction is hereby upheld. 21. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the FIR is of the year 2002 and more than 18 years have already elapsed and apparently, the present case is the first offence of the petitioners and petitioners as well as the informant party are co-villagers and are living in the neighbour-hood of each other, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be served, if their sentences are modified to some extent by imposing fine. Accordingly, the sentence of the petitioner-Sahabuddin Ansari, who has been convicted under Section 325 of Indian Penal Code for a period one year, is hereby reduced to a period of four months with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and the sentence of petitioner-Allauddin Ansari, who has been convicted for offence under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code for a period of nine months, is hereby reduced to a period of three months with fine of Rs. 5,000/-. 22. The aforesaid fine amount of Rs. 5,000/- and the sentence of petitioner-Allauddin Ansari, who has been convicted for offence under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code for a period of nine months, is hereby reduced to a period of three months with fine of Rs. 5,000/-. 22. The aforesaid fine amount of Rs. 5000/- each is to be deposited before the learned trial court within a period of two months from the date of communication of a copy of this order to the learned trial court and the fine amount so deposited is directed to be remitted to the informant-victim of the case after due identification. It is also directed that in case the fine amount is not deposited within the stipulated time frame, the petitioners would serve the sentence already imposed by the learned trial court. 23. No interference is called for in the punishment of fine of Rs.200/-with default condition upon both the petitioners under Section 341/34 of Indian Penal Code. 24. Accordingly, with the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in sentence of the petitioners, both the criminal revision applications are hereby disposed of. 25. Bail bonds furnished by the petitioners are cancelled. 26. Interim order, if any, stands cancelled. 27. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are also dismissed as not pressed. 28. Let the lower court records be sent back immediately to the court concerned. 29. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through ‘e-mail/FAX’.