JUDGMENT : C.P Case No. 42 of 2009 was instituted by Babulal Napit alleging various criminal acts on the part of Umesh Mahato, Dinesh Mahato and Mahesh Mahato. In T.R No. 962 of 2014 the aforesaid persons were convicted under sections 323, 341/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC), however, were granted benefit under section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act and released after due admonition. 2. Criminal Appeal No.97 of 2014 filed by the aforesaid convicts who are petitioners before this Court was dismissed on 20th February 2015. 3. Mr. Kalyan Banerjee, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties were on litigating terms and on account of previous animosity the petitioners were involved in a false case. It is submitted that there is no eyewitness to the occurrence of 3rd January 2009 and 4th January 2009 when the petitioners allegedly assaulted Babulal Napit, snatched Rs.650/-from him and demolished boundary wall of his house. Still, the petitioners were convicted by the trial Judge and their conviction has been affirmed by the appellate Court. 4. The complainant produced 3 witnesses besides examining himself as CW4 to prove the allegations made by him in C.P Case No.42 of 2009. The trial Judge finding prima facie case under sections 323, 341, 379, 506, 427/34 IPC framed charges against the petitioners and on examination of the materials on record held as under : “13. It is pertinent to note down here that it is a case under sections 323, 341, 379, 506, 427/34 IPC. First dealing with section 506 IPC, from the witnesses examined all of these witnesses have supported the case but no where in the evidences of these witnesses it has come that they have specifically abused or criminal intimidated the complainant. Further no where in the evidence it has come specifically as to who committed theft of Rs.650/- from the pocket of complainant and took money out of his possession without his consent. The picture is not very much clear and the evidence in examination-in-chief and cross-examination is full of vital contradictions. Further no where in the evidence it has come specifically as to who committed theft of Rs.650/- from the pocket of complainant and took money out of his possession without his consent. The picture is not very much clear and the evidence in examination-in-chief and cross-examination is full of vital contradictions. Further the fact of demolition of wall also attracts lots of contradiction, major contradiction as to who is responsible person for it and admission of this fact by both the parties that land dispute is going on between them can not negate the fact of filing of this case by complainant just to harass each other. Thus, sections 506, 427, 379 IPC are not attracted. As far as sections 341, 323 IPC are concerned, it is clear that accused persons restrained the complainant and assaulted him with fists and slaps. It has not been contradicted any where in cross-examination. Though, the land dispute is there but assault due to land dispute can not be discarded and there are sufficient material available on record against the accused persons to hold them guilty under section 323, 341 IPC. Hence, the accused persons are hereby held guilty under section 323, 341/34 IPC and they are convicted accordingly and their respective liabilities as to bail bonds alongwith sureties are also hereby cancelled and they are taken into custody. However, sentence will be pronounced later on after hearing on the point of sentence.” 5. A glance at the evidence tendered by CW3 would reveal that this witness has remained firm in his cross-examination while stating that he has seen the occurrence of 4th January 2009. The complainant who examined himself as CW4 has also tendered evidence in the Court in support of his complaint against the petitioners. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that no particular number of witnesses is required to prove a fact and that is the reason it has been held that evidence of a sole witness is sufficient to record conviction provided his evidence inspires confidence of the Court. It is also true that to prove a fact the prosecution is not required to produce eyewitness and a fact can be proved by inference drawn from circumstantial evidence. 6. Furthermore, an inimical witness may be interested in prosecution of the accused but enmity per se is not a ground to discard evidence of such a witness. It is also true that to prove a fact the prosecution is not required to produce eyewitness and a fact can be proved by inference drawn from circumstantial evidence. 6. Furthermore, an inimical witness may be interested in prosecution of the accused but enmity per se is not a ground to discard evidence of such a witness. All that is required is that the Court should scrutinize testimony of an inimical witness with greater care and caution. 7. In “Raju v. State of T.N.” (2012) 12 SCC 701 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “a court should examine the evidence of a related and interested witness having an interest in seeing the accused punished and also having some enmity with the accused with greater care and caution than the evidence of a third party disinterested and unrelated witness”. 8. In “Masalti v. State of U.P.” AIR 1965 SC 202 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under : “14.….....There is no doubt that when a criminal court has to appreciate evidence given by witnesses who are partisan or interested, it has to be very careful in weighing such evidence. Whether or not there are discrepancies in the evidence; whether or not evidence strikes the Court as genuine; whether or not the story disclosed by the evidence is probable, are all matters which must be taken into account. But it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend that evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witnesses. …………… The mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to how much evidence should be appreciated. Judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence; but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be accepted as correct.” 9. Two Courts have concurrently held against the petitioners and found them guilty for commission of the offence under sections 323, 341/34 IPC. Now in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction the High Court would not enter into minute examination of the evidences laid before the trial Court [refers, “Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar and others” (1987) 1 SCC 288]. 10. Two Courts have concurrently held against the petitioners and found them guilty for commission of the offence under sections 323, 341/34 IPC. Now in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction the High Court would not enter into minute examination of the evidences laid before the trial Court [refers, “Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar and others” (1987) 1 SCC 288]. 10. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri” (1999) 2 SCC 452 in exercise of revisional jurisdiction the High Court shall not interfere with the order of conviction except in very exceptional kind of cases where refusal to interference by the High Court would result in miscarriage of justice. 11. In “Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri” the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under : “5.…. In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an appellate court nor can it be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. …” 12. Having found so, this Court finds no merits in this criminal revision petition and, accordingly, Criminal Revision No. 608 of 2015 is dismissed. 13. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Court concerned through “Fax”. 14. Let the lower Court records be sent to the Court concerned forthwith.