JUDGMENT :- (Prayer: This Criminal Revision Case has been filed, against the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 04.02.2013, passed in CA.No.65 of 2013, by the Principal Sessions Judge, Erode, modifying the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 19.08.2013, passed in SC.No.29, by the I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Erode.) 1. This Criminal Revision Case has been filed, against the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 04.02.2013, passed in CA.No.65 of 2013, by the Principal Sessions Judge, Erode, modifying the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 19.08.2013, passed in SC.No.29, by the I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Erode. 2. The case of the Prosecution had arisen on the basis of the complaint, Ex.P1 given by PW.1, stating that on 24.07.2012 at 10.30 a.m. when the witnesses, PW.1, PW.3 to PW.6, were engaged for cutting the palmyra trees available in the lands of PW.2, the Petitioner/Accused came there in a motorcycle, MO.2 and objected to the same and quarrelled with PW.2 and that after such quarrel, the accused removed the spade MO.1 from PW.1 and attacked PW.2 on his head and left hand repeatedly, due to which, PW.2 had sustained injuries on his head and forearm. For such acts, the Petitioner/Accused was charge sheeted for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. 3. The case was taken on file in SC.No.29 of 2013, by the I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Erode and necessary charges were framed. The accused had denied the charges and sought for trial. In order to bring home the charges against the accused, the Prosecution had examined PW.1 to PW.11 and also marked Exs.P1 to P10 and Mos.1 and 2. 4. On completion of the evidence on the side of the Prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.PC as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the accused had come with the version of total denial and stated that he had been falsely implicated in this case. On the side of the defence, neither any document was marked nor any witness was examined. 5. On the side of the defence, neither any document was marked nor any witness was examined. 5. The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and also looking into the materials available on record, found the Petitioner/Accused guilty and convicted and sentenced the accused for the offence under Section 325 of IPC to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months. On the appeal, the lower appellate court had modified the judgment of conviction and sentence of the Trial Court and convicted and sentenced the accused for the offence under Section 324 of IPC to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved over the same, this Criminal Revision Case has been filed. 6. This court heard the submissions of the learned counsel on either side. 7. The learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that both the courts below have failed to consider the evidence of PW.1 and PW.3 to PW.6, in its proper perspective and that the accident register copy issued by the Government Hospital, Gobichettipalayam was not marked and the Doctor, who treated PW.2 in the said Government Hospital, was also not examined and that the recovery of MO.1 and MO.2 pursuant to the confession statement of the accused is unbelievable and that X-ray was not marked to prove the nature of the injuries. The learned counsel would further submit that the genuineness of Ex.P1 complaint has not been proved and that the Prosecution has failed to prove as to whether the injury was caused by aruval or spade and that PW.9 is not the author of Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 and therefore, he is not a competent person to speak about the same. The learned counsel would further submit that since there was previous enmity between the families of the accused and the victim, there was every possibility of foisting a false case against the accused and that the evidence of the Prosecution witnesses do not inspire confidence and in such circumstances, the Petitioner is entitled to get a benefit of doubt and consequently, he is to be acquitted. The learned counsel would further submit that in the event of this Court upholding the conviction of the Petitioner/Accused as imposed by the lower appellate court, leniency may shown to him, by reducing the sentence of imprisonment, considering the age and the fact that he is the sole bread winner of the family and in support of such contention, he has relied on the decision of this Court reported in CDJ 2007 MHC 3508 (Perumal Vs. State) and an unreported judgment of this Court dated 27.07.2018, made in Cr.RC.No.1785 of 2011. 8. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate for the Respondent would submit that the Prosecution has proved its case, namely, the incident, the injury sustained by the victim and also the involvement of the accused in the crime, beyond all reasonable doubts, by adducing valid and cogent evidence and that both the courts below have considered the evidence both oral and documentary and convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above and there is no valid ground for acquitting the accused and hence, this Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed. 9. I have given my careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions put forward by either side and thoroughly scanned through the entire evidence available on record and also perused the impugned judgment. 10. The evidence on record would reveal that the occurrence took place on 24.07.2012 at 10.30 a.m. and at that time, when PW.1, PW.3 to PW.6 were cutting the palmyra trees available in the lands of the injured victim, PW.2, the Petitioner/accused came there in a motorcycle, MO.2 and objected for cutting the trees and quarrelled with PW.2. After such a quarrel, the accused removed the spade MO.1 from PW.1 and attacked PW.2 on his head and left hand repeatedly, due to which, PW.2 had sustained injuries and the accused left the place occurrence in the motorcycle. PW.7 son of the PW.2, who was working in the nearby field, on hearing the sound, he came there and seen PW.2 and he took him to the Government Hospital, Gopichettipalayam and thereafter, he was taken to the Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore. Thereafter, PW.1 and others came to the Police Station and gave Ex.P1 complaint. PW.7 son of the PW.2, who was working in the nearby field, on hearing the sound, he came there and seen PW.2 and he took him to the Government Hospital, Gopichettipalayam and thereafter, he was taken to the Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore. Thereafter, PW.1 and others came to the Police Station and gave Ex.P1 complaint. On receipt of the complaint, Ex.P1, PW.10, the Sub Inspector of Police had registered a case in Cr.No.228 of 2012 under Section 307 of IPC and Ex.P7 is the printed First Information Report and forwarded the same to the Court and copies to PW.11 Inspector of Police. PW.11 took up the case for investigation and went to the place of occurrence and prepared the observation mahazar Ex.P2 in the presence of the witnesses, PW.8 Selvaraj and Anbu and prepared Ex.P8 rough sketch and examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. On the same day of occurrence, at 15.30 hours, he arrested the accused and recorded his confession and seized the spade MO.1 and motorcycle, MO.2 under Ex.P3, seizure mahazar and the sent the same to the Court under Ex.P8 Form 95 and obtained discharge summary from the Hospital. After completing investigation, PW.1 had laid the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. 11. Though the Petitioner/Accused was charge sheeted for the offence under Section 307 of IPC, as the Prosecution had failed to prove the same by valid evidence, but, considering the evidence available on record, he was convicted for the offence under Section 325 of IPC and sentenced to undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo three months Simple Imprisonment. However, on the appeal, the judgment of conviction and sentence was modified to the effect that the accused was convicted for the offence under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months. 12. Now, the question that arises for consideration is as to whether the Prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts, by letting in valid and cogent evidence, for upholding the impugned judgment of the lower appellate court, convicting the Petitioner/Accused for the offence under Section 324 of IPC or whether the Petitioner/Accused is entitled for acquittal for the reasons stated in the grounds of revision. 13. PW.1, in his evidence has deposed that the he was engaged by one Muthusamy along with PW.3 to PW.6 to cut the trees in the lands of PW.2 and that PW.2 was also present at the time of occurrence and that the accused came to the scene of occurrence, removed the spade from PW.1 and attacked PW.2 on his head and left hand and thereafter, the injured was taken to the Hospital and the complaint was lodged. 14. PW.2, the victim, in his evidence has also deposed that the accused came to the place of occurrence and attacked him while he was cutting the trees. PW.3 to PW.6, in their evidence have also deposed that while they were cutting the trees, the accused came there and objected to the same and that the accused attacked PW.2 with a spade. PW.7, son of the injured victim, PW.2, in his evidence has stated that immediately on hearing the sound, he came to the spot and took his father to the Hospital. 15. PW.9, who is the Medical Officer attached to the Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore, has categorically stated that at about 2.00 p.m. on the day of occurrence, PW.2 was brought by PW.7 and that PW.2 was attacked by a known person with sickle. PW.9 has noted 2 cm cut injury on the head, 2 cm cut injury on the left forearm and 1 cm cut injury on the left forearm and also tenderness on the left forearm and he took X-ray and found fracture on the left hand and he had issued Ex.P5 accident register for the same and Ex.P6 is the wound certificate, as per which, the injury nos.2 and 3 are grievous in nature. 16. The evidence of PW.1 to PW.6 shows that the accused had caused such cut injuries to PW.2 at the relevant point of time. The evidence of PW.3 to PW.6 would go to show that before the occurrence, there was a quarrel between PW.2 and the accused in respect of cutting the trees and that the occurrence took place during the quarrel in respect of cutting the trees. Thus, it is clear from the evidence that only in the dispute over cutting the trees, there was a quarrel between them, which culminated in attacking PW.2 by the accused by the spade used by the worker. 17. Thus, it is clear from the evidence that only in the dispute over cutting the trees, there was a quarrel between them, which culminated in attacking PW.2 by the accused by the spade used by the worker. 17. Though X-ray has not been produced to prove the nature of fracture on the left hand, the evidence of PW.9 to the effect that PW.2 had sustained cut injuries on his head and left hand and the evidence of the eye witnesses to the occurrence to that effect, cannot be discarded. Such evidence of the eye witnesses coupled with the evidence of PW.9 would clearly show that the cut injuries have been established. 18. Though it has been contended by the accused that neither the Doctor from the Government Hospital, Gobichettipalayam was not examined nor the accident register was not produced, but the fact remains that from there, PW.2 was taken to Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore and treated till 30.07.2012 as per the wound certificate and hence, the said contention cannot be a ground to discard the entire version of the Prosecution. 19. PW.7 was not an direct eye witness to the occurrence and only on hearing the sound, he came to the spot and took his father to the hospital and therefore, giving different statements as to the nature of the weapon by PW.7 cannot be fatal to the case of the Prosecution. The entire evidence of the witnesses would focus to the point that the accused attacked PW.2 only with spade, with which, there is every possibility of causing cut injuries. 20. The accused did not come with the weapon, spade with a pre-plan and he picked up the weapon from the person who was working in the field, only after such quarrel. Considering the said facts and having regard to the nature of injuries, the weapon, the spade, which was collected by the accused from the witness after quarrel with PW.2 and in the absence of X-ray having not been produced, this Court is of the view that the lower appellate court had rightly convicted the accused for the offence under Section 324 of IPC, modifying the judgment of conviction and sentence of the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and there is no illegality of perversity in the findings of the lower appellate court. However, in so far as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned, considering the age of the Petitioner/Accused, the fact that he is the sole bread winner of the family, the nature of the injuries and taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances of the case, it needs to be modified. 21. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed in part, confirming the conviction imposed on the Petitioner/Accused by the lower appellate court and the sentence of fine and modifying the sentence of imprisonment alone to the effect that the Petitioner/Accused shall undergo six months Rigorous Imprisonment. No costs.