ORDER : 1. Invoking Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. this criminal revision case is filed by two convicts assailing the judgments of Courts below in convicting them and sentencing them for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C. Respondent herein is the State. 2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Karvetinagar Police Station of Chittoor District investigated into Crime No. 69 of 2003 and laid charge sheet for the offences under Sections 307 and 326 I.P.C. before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Puttur. That was registered as P.R.C. No. 2 of 2004. On securing the presence of the accused, copies of documents in terms of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were furnished to them. After hearing both sides, in terms of Section 209 Cr.P.C. the learned Magistrate committed the case and forwarded the accused to the Court of Sessions. When it was made over to learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Puttur in S.C. No. 164 of 2004, the accused and prosecution were heard and based on the material charges under Sections 307, 326 and 324 I.P.C. were framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu. The accused denied the truth of the allegations and pleaded not guilty. During trial PWs. 1 to 11 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.18 were marked and M.Os.1 to 6 were exhibited. Accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. where the incriminating material available on record was confronted to them. They denied the truth of it. In defence, the accused did not choose to adduce any evidence. After considering the evidence on record and the arguments on both sides, learned trial Court recorded its findings stating that grievous injuries were caused to the victim/PW-2 by these two accused using billhooks/M.Os.5 and 6. It observed that from the evidence it did not find any intention on part of the accused to kill the victim. After considering the evidence on record and the arguments on both sides, learned trial Court recorded its findings stating that grievous injuries were caused to the victim/PW-2 by these two accused using billhooks/M.Os.5 and 6. It observed that from the evidence it did not find any intention on part of the accused to kill the victim. Therefore, it acquitted them of the charge under Section 307 I.P.C. It found that out of three injuries sustained by the victim/PW-2, two injuries were grievous as they resulted in fractures and therefore, it found both the accused guilty for the charge under Section 326 I.P.C. Since the charge under Section 326 I.P.C. established, it thought that the charge under Section 324 I.P.C. did not survive and therefore, acquitted them of the charge under Section 324 I.P.C. For the offence under Section 326 I.P.C. as it found the accused guilty, it convicted them and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and also pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, failing which they were directed to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The period of remand underwent by the accused were given set off in terms of Section 428 Cr.P.C. The convicts challenged that judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 88 of 2006. The learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati on hearing the arguments on both sides and on considering the evidence on record, rendered its judgment on 22.06.2009 wherein it agreed with the findings of the trial Court and confirmed the guilt and conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C. When it came to the sentence, it recorded at Para No. 17 of its judgment that during the course of arguments, the appellants/defence prayed the Court to reduce the sentence from five years to one year. The reasons for reduction were also recorded and then the learned Sessions Judge reduced the punishment from five years to one year and kept in-tact the component of fine along with its default sentence. 3. It is that judgment which is challenged in this revision by both the convicts stating that the Courts below went on to accept the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 which remained not supported by any independent witness. 3. It is that judgment which is challenged in this revision by both the convicts stating that the Courts below went on to accept the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 which remained not supported by any independent witness. Police did not record the statement of PW-2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The panch witnesses for scene of observation report, arrest mahazar of accused and report concerning recovery of crime weapons did not support the prosecution version. PW-1 is the very brother of PW-2 and is thus an interested witness. That there was an earlier enmity between parties because of another case in C.C. No. 126 of 2003 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Puttur and therefore, absence of independent witnesses is a vital defect. The evidence on record is contradictory. That these revision petitioners are responsible ryots and have no earlier criminal record. For all these reasons, the learned counsel for revision petitioners submit that the judgments of the Courts below shall be set aside and these revision petitioners be acquitted. 4. As against it, the arguments of the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor are to the effect that not recording of statement of PW-2 by the investigating officer does not have any bearing on the merits of the case and that the version of PW-2 that he sustained the injuries in the hands of the accused found full support from the direct witness/PW-1 and on most of the particulars concerning the actual offence that took place, the evidence of PW-3 lent support and the learned trial Court as well as first appellate Court rightly put faith on the evidence adduced by prosecution and the conclusions arrived at by both the Courts below are in accordance with facts and law requiring no interference in this revision. 5. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, the points that fall for consideration in this revision are: 1. Whether the Courts below were incorrect in accepting the evidence? 2. Whether the judgments of the Courts below suffer from irregularity or illegality or impropriety requiring interference in this revision? 6. Points: In all criminal trials, the scheme of the law is to permit a fair trial and an appropriately heard first appeal. Whether the Courts below were incorrect in accepting the evidence? 2. Whether the judgments of the Courts below suffer from irregularity or illegality or impropriety requiring interference in this revision? 6. Points: In all criminal trials, the scheme of the law is to permit a fair trial and an appropriately heard first appeal. In the case at hand, the procedure adopted for trial and the procedure adopted in hearing the appeal are in accordance with law and they were never challenged by the revision petitioners on any such grounds. To see and preserve the principles of criminal jurisprudence, revisional power is vested with this Court under Section 397 Cr.P.C. to scrutinize and verify the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding entered into by the Courts below. The powers that can be exercised by appellate Court are different from the powers that can be exercised by a revisional Court. It is in the backdrop of these legal principles, this revision has to be considered. 7. The facts established from evidence and the facts that are not disputed by the revision petitioners require a brief narration here. The accused, the victim and the prime witnesses are all agriculturists. The crime incident occurred in the agricultural fields at about 5:00 P.M. in the evening of 12.12.2003. These agricultural lands situate in Padiri Kuppam Dalithawada Village of Karvetinagar Mandal, Chittoor District. At the relevant time, the victim/PW-2 was attending his agricultural operations in his lands and the work he was attending was seedling. His brother/PW-1 was irrigating sugarcane crop in his adjacent land. Both the accused were cutting sugarcane crop in their own adjacent agricultural fields and they also engaged coolies and they were also attending the said work. It was in that setting the crime incident allegedly occurred. The version of the victim/PW-2 was that both the accused holding billhooks came upon him from behind and attacked him and A.1 caused injury on his head and on the back of his right shoulder and A.2 with billhook caused injury on the back of right elbow. On receiving these injuries PW-2 fell down and went unconscious. Soon he was shifted to hospital by PW-1 and others and he was admitted in Government Hospital, Puttur. The hospital authorities sent Ex.P.3 intimation to police and the police party arrived at and they found the victim unconscious. On receiving these injuries PW-2 fell down and went unconscious. Soon he was shifted to hospital by PW-1 and others and he was admitted in Government Hospital, Puttur. The hospital authorities sent Ex.P.3 intimation to police and the police party arrived at and they found the victim unconscious. Then the victim’s brother PW-1 gave his Ex.P.1-statemet and the police reduced it into writing and they registered Crime No. 69 of 2003 and Ex.P.14 is F.I.R. The victim was attended to by PW-6/doctor at 9:00 P.M. and he issued Ex.P.4 wound certificate. It is on these facts one could notice that within four hours from the time of offence F.I.R. was registered and requisite medical attention was provided to the victim. Learned trial Court on analyzing all this evidence recorded a finding that in the given facts and circumstances there was absolutely no delay in lodging F.I.R. and therefore, there was no possibility of any concoction for anything that is narrated in Ex.P.1. 8. The doctor, who treated the victim, deposed as PW-6 and disclosed the injuries he noticed on the body of PW-2. They are: 1. A lacerated injury over the vault of skull extending from right parietal to left parietal region transverse and irregular, fresh and bleeding measuring 10 cms x 2 cms x Bone deep. 2. An incised injury over the back of right shoulder 2 cms x ½ cm size. 3. An incised injury over the back of right elbow joint 2 cms x 2 cm x skin deep. 9. Considering the nature of the injuries, the victim was subjected to examination by Radiologist and the said Radiologist testified as PW-9 and through him the X-ray Films and X-ray report in Exs.P.11 and P.12 were marked. The evidence of these two medical men/PW-6 and PW-9 coupled with Exs.P.11, P.12 and Ex.P.4 wound certificate indicate fracture of scalp and fracture of right forearm of PW-2. Both the doctors stated that they were grievous injuries. During the course of trial, when PW-6 was in the witness box, he was shown M.Os.5 and 6 billhooks and the doctor verified them and said that such weapons could cause the kind of injuries he noticed on the body of PW-2. The record of the trial Court’s judgment would show that for 18 days PW-2 was in the hospital and was unconscious. The record of the trial Court’s judgment would show that for 18 days PW-2 was in the hospital and was unconscious. PW-11 was the investigating police officer and in his evidence he stated that on arresting the accused they confessed and led them to a place from where they procured and handed over M.Os.5 and 6-billhooks and he seized them under the cover of Ex.P.8 Mahazar. Both the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court considered all this evidence and recorded observations that the evidence was clinching and unimpeachable. 10. One point of attack from the learned counsel for revision petitioners is that PW-2, who is the victim in this case, was never examined by police during the course of investigation and his statement was never recorded and that is one flaw which goes to the route of the case. The fact that his statement was not recorded is seen from the judgments of the Courts below. Both the Courts did not record any finding since this point was never argued before the Courts below. Section 161 Cr.P.C. empowers an investigating police officer to orally examine any person acquainted with the facts of case and as per Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. the police officer was at liberty as it was his discretion to reduce into writing any such statement from any of those witnesses who he examined orally. Section 162(1) Cr.P.C. mandates the police officer not to obtain signature of the deponent whose statement he had recorded under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. This Section 162(1) Cr.P.C. further makes it clear that those statements recorded by the police during the course of investigation shall not be used for any purpose during the course of trial except as is provided further by the provision. The provision further makes it clear that such former statements of witnesses made to police could be used by the accused for the purpose of contradicting the witness, but the prosecution cannot use such statements for the purpose of corroborating the sworn evidence of a witness in the Court. Cross-examination is an effective tool and it is mostly applied to impeach the credibility of a witness. Credibility of a witness could be impeached by utilizing any former written statement of the witness or by other methods. Cross-examination is an effective tool and it is mostly applied to impeach the credibility of a witness. Credibility of a witness could be impeached by utilizing any former written statement of the witness or by other methods. In a case like the present one, where the former statement of a witness was not chosen to be reduced into writing by police, the only inconvenience caused to the defence is that it had no opportunity to contradict the version of the witness in the Court utilizing the former statement. Excepting that there is no other use of former statement for the purpose of trial. The defence is no way handicapped in using its skilful ways of cross-examination in impeaching the credibility of PW2. A valid investigation and trial are not dependent on existence of written statement of every witness tendered by the prosecution. Learned counsel for revision petitioners has not brought to the attention of this Court any particular statute or precedent to the effect that in the absence of a former statement of a victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the investigation and trial is vitiated. Therefore, the failure of investigating agency in not recording the statement of the victim who was for a long time unconscious by itself did not cause any particular prejudice to anyone. Therefore, such lapse has no legal bearing. 11. PW-1 is the de facto complainant and he is the brother of the victim/PW-2. His evidence is that, while he was attending his agricultural operations, the accused who were attending agricultural operations in their own fields reached to the spot of offence and they attacked PW-2 who was attending his own agricultural operations. He stated that he saw both the accused wielding billhooks causing such grave serious injuries on the body of PW-2. This evidence was accepted by both the Courts below as it served the purpose of supporting the version of PW-2. Learned counsel for revision petitioners criticized this evidence stating that PW-2 is an interested witness. Be it noted, mere relationship between witnesses does not make one witness an interested witness. A witness ceases to be neutral and could be categorized as interested only when the material is shown that he is prepared to speak falsehood and implicate an innocent. Learned counsel for revision petitioners criticized this evidence stating that PW-2 is an interested witness. Be it noted, mere relationship between witnesses does not make one witness an interested witness. A witness ceases to be neutral and could be categorized as interested only when the material is shown that he is prepared to speak falsehood and implicate an innocent. Both the Courts below after narrating the evidence exhaustively, have categorically recorded a finding that the evidence established presence of the accused with billhooks at the scene of offence. It is never the evidence of the accused that they were not at the scene of offence and they were not with billhooks at the relevant time. Revision petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 2 did not show any circumstances to enable both the Courts below to have any doubt in their mind that the injuries of PW-2 could have been sustained for any other reason other than what was spoken to by PW-2. There seemed no material to disbelieve the testimony of PW-1 to call him an interested witness. The approach of the Courts below cannot be found fault with. Therefore, the contention raised by the revision petitioners that the evidence of PW-1 shall be discarded on the ground that he is an interested witness is an argument that has no merit. 12. PW-3 is another neighbouring ryot. His evidence was considered especially by both the Courts below and they stated that he spoke every fact except as to accused causing such injuries on PW-1. His evidence indicated to the Courts below the presence of accused and the accused holding billhooks and the victim/PW-2 being present in his own lands and the victim was found unconscious with serious bleeding injuries. This is an independent witness who is unrelated and not inimical to either accused or to the prosecution witnesses. Courts below recorded that evidence of PW-2 established the overt acts on part of accused and the evidence of PW-3 served the slot of circumstantial evidence. It is in the context of this evidence and the approach of the trial Court and the first appellate Court, the contention of the revision petitioners that there is no independent evidence is an argument without merit. 13. The two panch witnesses admitted their signatures on all panchanams, but stated to the Court that such signatures of them were obtained from them by the police at police station. 13. The two panch witnesses admitted their signatures on all panchanams, but stated to the Court that such signatures of them were obtained from them by the police at police station. Utilising this aspect of the matter the contention of the revision petitioners is that, that is one vital aspect which fatally effects the credibility of prosecution version. There is absolutely no merit in this contention. These witnesses were to speak about police verifying the scene of offence, arresting the accused and recovering crime weapons from them. Thus, they are post-incident witnesses. Whether they support or do not support the evidence of investigating officer has no bearing when the Courts have to consider the credibility of the prosecution version about the overt acts attributed against the accused with reference to the victim. At any rate both the Courts below considered that the hostility of those panch witnesses has in no manner dented the credibility of the prosecution version. Such an approach is not against law. 14. The discussion made above indicates and the contentions raised by the revision petitioners do show that they failed to show any particular irregularity or illegality or impropriety on part of the Courts below in arriving at their judgments. A mere re-appreciation of evidence is not what is called for in a revision. A reading of the grounds of revision and the arguments submitted by the learned counsel merely focused on making this Court to re-appreciate the evidence and nothing more. The well written judgments of Courts below do not require any corrections. The judgments of the Courts below which concluded that with dangerous weapons these two accused caused grievous hurt to the victim is correct and convicting the revision petitioners for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C. is appropriate. The sentence that was inflicted by the trial Court was reduced to its 1/5th by the learned first appellate Court as it acted upon the mercy prayers of these revision petitioners. Therefore, there is no further need to revise the length of sentence and the fine inflicted on them. With these reasons, the points are answered against the revision petitioners. 15. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Therefore, there is no further need to revise the length of sentence and the fine inflicted on them. With these reasons, the points are answered against the revision petitioners. 15. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Revision petitioners/A.1 Dasari Ram Babu and A.2 Dasari Ramesh @ Ramesh Babu shall surrender before the trial Court and submit themselves on or before 28.02.2023, failing which the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Puttur shall take coercive process against them and see that the sentence inflicted is enforced. 16. Registry is directed to dispatch a copy of this order along with the lower Court record, if any, to the Court below on or before 23.02.2023. A copy of this order be placed before the Registrar (Judicial), forthwith, for giving necessary instructions to the concerned Officers in the Registry. 17. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.