ORDER : 1. Challenge in this revision is to judgment dated 05.03.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No. H-21/2015 whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pendraroad, District - Bilaspur (CG) partly allowed the criminal appeal of applicant and while affirming the conviction of the applicant under Section 326 of IPC passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pendraroad in Criminal Case No.488/2014, modified the sentence of the applicant and ordered to undergo RI for 1 year instead of RI for 2 years, and fine of Rs.1000/-. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 15.09.2011 at about 7:00 in the evening, complainant- Sagar Prasad Choudhary lodged a report in the concerned police station stating that his agricultural land is located adjacent to the land of his elder brother- Tirath. Due to flow of water from his agricultural land to the land of his elder brother leading to erosion of mud and its deposit in his field, causing damage to the crops, applicant got enraged, abused the complainant and said that he has no right to interfere with whatever he wanted to do in his agricultural field. Applicant threatened to kill the complainant. Thereafter, complainant came back to his house and was discussing issue with the family members. At that time, applicant came to his house in a fit of anger holding an axe and assaulted the complainant near his right elbow due to which blood started oozing. He also assaulted the complainant on his back and forearms, due to which, he suffered injuries. His wife and daughter intervened and informed the incident to village Sarpanch. Thereafter, the incident was reported to the concerned police station, based upon which, FIR was registered against the applicant. After conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the applicant for commission of offence as alleged against him. 3. Applicant was charged with the offences under Sections 294, 452, 326, 506 Part-II of IPC. He denied the charges and prayed for trial. To prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses namely Sagarprasad (PW1) the complainant, Ramratiya Bai (PW2) wife of the complainant, Vinod Kumar (PW3), Gangotri Jatav (PW4), Anand Ram (PW5), Makhan (PW6), Dr. J.S. Kanwar (PW7), Mithlesh Marko (PW8), Prakash Sahu (PW9). Statement of applicant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied all incriminating evidence appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication. J.S. Kanwar (PW7), Mithlesh Marko (PW8), Prakash Sahu (PW9). Statement of applicant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied all incriminating evidence appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication. No witness was examined by the accused- applicant in defence. 4. Learned trial Court, relying upon the evidence of prosecution, oral and documentary, produced before it, held that the applicant abused and assaulted the complainant, gave threat to life, convicted the applicant under Sections 452, 326 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo 1 year RI, fine of Rs.500/- and 2 years RI and fine of Rs. 1000/- respectively. Order passed by trial Court was challenged in appeal before learned Sessions Court. Sessions Court acquitted the applicant from charge under Section 452 of IPC, upheld conviction under Section 326 of IPC and reduced the jail sentence to 1 year RI with fine of Rs.1000/-. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that learned trial Court and appellate Court had not correctly appreciated the evidence of witnesses. It failed to appreciate the fact that prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. There was land dispute between the parties. To hold the applicant guilty of commission of offence, learned trial Court relied upon the version of interested witnesses who are relatives of the complainant. Prosecution has not examined any other independent witness so as to corroborate the case of complainant. Key witnesses of the prosecution have made contradictory statement. Seizure witness of axe turned hostile. Hence, this revision petition be allowed and the conviction against the applicant be set-aside. 6. In alternate, learned counsel for the applicant submits that if this Court comes to conclusion that there is no perversity in the finding of guilt recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court, then considering that incident occurred on a petty issue, in a spur of moment, between the two real brothers, incident is of the year 2011, there was no pre-planning or premeditation, the applicant is the first offender, jail sentence of the applicant be reduced to the period of sentence already undergone. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the grounds raised in revision as also the submissions made on behalf of the applicant. It is submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the grounds raised in revision as also the submissions made on behalf of the applicant. It is submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Eyewitness of the incident namely Ramratiya (PW2), Gangotri Jatav (PW4), in their statement have clearly stated that the applicant assaulted the complainant with the help of axe. In their cross-examination, nothing has been elicited so as to disbelieve the version of these eyewitness. Learned trial Court after minute evaluation of the evidence of witnesses, nature of injury suffered, medical report, weapon used, has correctly held the applicant guilty of commission of offences alleged against him. Learned appellate Court affirmed the conviction under Section 326 of IPC, therefore, no interference is called for to the impugned judgment. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record of the trial Court. 9. Complainant -Sagarprasad was examined as PW1. In para -1 of his statement he stated that on the date of incident at about 7:00 to 8:00 in the morning, he went to his agriculture field. Accused/applicant had also gone there. He asked the accused/applicant as to why he is dumping mud in his field, upon which applicant abused and threatened. Thereafter, accused and complainant both returned to their home. While he was discussing with his wife about the act of applicant, accused came to his house, assaulted him. Due to assault, his hand got fractured. Incident of marpit was committed near to his house on the road. His wife intervened between him and the accused. He stated that the accused had assaulted him with the help of an axe. In para-2 of his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that in the night much water was flown. He denied the suggestion that he has assaulted or abused the accused/applicant when he went to spread fertilizer in the agriculture field. In para-3 of his deposition, he denied the suggestion that he has assaulted the accused/applicant with the help of lathi/danda. Suggestion given in cross-examination that due to assault by complainant, accused/applicant fell on the ground and at that moment complainant sustained injury of the axe kept by the accused/applicant was denied. In para-3 of his deposition, he denied the suggestion that he has assaulted the accused/applicant with the help of lathi/danda. Suggestion given in cross-examination that due to assault by complainant, accused/applicant fell on the ground and at that moment complainant sustained injury of the axe kept by the accused/applicant was denied. Further in para-4 of his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that because of longstanding partition dispute between him and accused, false report was lodged. 10. Ramratiya Bai (PW2) who is wife of the complainant in her cross- examination, stated that when her husband (complainant) after returning from the agricultural land, narrating the incident which took place in the agriculture field, accused/applicant came and assaulted her husband with the help of axe near her house. In her cross- examination, she denied the suggestion that she caught hold the waist of accused/applicant and her husband assaulted the accused and the injury suffered by the accused caused due to assault committed by her husband. Suggestion that, they assaulted the accused because of land related dispute and in order to save themselves, they lodged false report, was denied. 11. Gangotri Jatav (PW4) daughter of the complainant in her examination-in-chief has also stated that accused/applicant assaulted his father by axe. Due to assault, her father became unconscious and fell down, they intervened. In para-2 of her cross- examination, she denied the suggestion that her father (Complainant) assaulted the accused and in order to save themselves, a false report has been lodged. 12. Dr. J.S. Kawanr (PW7), Medical Officer, who examined the complainant, in his deposition, has descried following injuries found on the person of the complainant :- “1. Lacerated wound with bleeding 1 x ½ cm on upper posterior surface of right forearm. 2. Contusion 5 x 4 cm on posterior surface of right forearm. 3. Swelling with pain 6 x 4 cm over posterior lateral aspect of upper left arm. 4. Injury No.1 by sharp and pointed object. Injury No.2 and 3 by blunt and hard object. Advised for x- ray.” 13. Close scrutiny of evidence available on record makes it clear that on the fateful day, due to flow of water from the field of applicant to complainant, the applicant assaulted the complainant by means of axe causing injuries to him. Injury No.2 and 3 by blunt and hard object. Advised for x- ray.” 13. Close scrutiny of evidence available on record makes it clear that on the fateful day, due to flow of water from the field of applicant to complainant, the applicant assaulted the complainant by means of axe causing injuries to him. Testimony of the complainant stands corroborated from the medical evidence, according to which, the complainant suffered lacerated wound caused by sharp and pointed object. The doctor who examined the complainant in his cross- examination denied the suggestion that injury suffered by complainant could be caused due to fall on CC road. Bloodstained axe was seized from the possession of applicant and he failed to offer explanation as to how blood was present on the axe seized from his possession. Mithlesh Marko (PW8) has also deposed that when complainant came to his house to inform about the incident, blood was oozing from his hand. Version of the complainant also gets corroborated from the evidence of Ramratiya (PW2) and Gangotiri Jatav (PW4), eyewitnesses to the incident. Both these witnesses have categorically deposed that applicant assaulted the complainant with axe. True it is that PW2 and PW4 are wife and daughter of complainant, but the incident of assault occurred near the house of complainant and as such, the family members and close relatives of complainant are bound to be the natural witnesses. Merely because PW2 and PW-4 are related to the complainant, they cannot be labeled as the interested witnesses, unless it is shown that implication of the applicant in the case enures any benefit to them. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of these eyewitnesses so as to discredit their testimony in relation to assault. Hence, the evidence of PW2 and PW4 examined by the prosecution to prove its case against the accused-applicant cannot be discarded merely on the ground of their being related to deceased or their being interested witnesses. 14. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mano Dutt and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2012) 4 SCC 79 while considering the admissibility of evidence of the sole witness who is related to the deceased, observed that the statement of every related and witness cannot be as a matter of rule be rejected and held thus:- “24. 14. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mano Dutt and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2012) 4 SCC 79 while considering the admissibility of evidence of the sole witness who is related to the deceased, observed that the statement of every related and witness cannot be as a matter of rule be rejected and held thus:- “24. Another contention raised on behalf of the accused/appellants is that only family members of the deceased were examined as witnesses and they being interested witnesses cannot be relied upon. Furthermore, the prosecution did not examine any independent witnesses and, therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. This argument is again without much substance. Firstly, there is no bar in law in examining family members, or any other person, as witnesses. More often than not, in such cases involving family members of both sides, it is a member of the family or a friend who comes to rescue the injured. Those alone are the people who take the risk of sustaining injuries by jumping into such a quarrel and trying to defuse the crisis. Besides, when the statement of witnesses, who are relatives, or are parties known to the affected party, is credible, reliable, trustworthy, admissible in accordance with the law and corroborated by other witnesses or documentary evidence of the prosecution, there would hardly be any reason for the Court to reject such evidence merely on the ground that the witness was a family member or interested witness or person known to the affected party. 25. There can be cases where it would be but inevitable to examine such witnesses, because, as the events occurred, they were the natural or the only eye witnesses available to give the complete version of the incident. In this regard, we may refer to the judgments of this Court, in the case of Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra, [ (2007) 14 SCC 150 ]. This Court drew a clear distinction between a chance witness and a natural witness. Both these witnesses have to be relied upon subject to their evidence being trustworthy and admissible in accordance with the law.” 15. Thus from the evidence of the complainant coupled with medical evidence and eyewitness to the incident, the presence of injury on the hand of complainant and involvement of applicant in commission of crime in question is duly established. 16. Thus from the evidence of the complainant coupled with medical evidence and eyewitness to the incident, the presence of injury on the hand of complainant and involvement of applicant in commission of crime in question is duly established. 16. In case of Malkeet Singh Gill Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. reported in (2022) 8 SCC 204 , Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope of Section 397 Cr.P.C., has observed that if the Courts below have recorded the finding of fact, the question of re-appreciation of evidence by the third Court does not arise unless it is found to be totally perverse. Para-11 of the said decision is reproduced below:- “11. This Court in the case of ‘Manju Ram Kalita vs State of Assam- (2009) 13 SCC 330 ’, while dealing with the scope of re-appreciation of evidence by higher Court in criminal revision, observed in paras 9, 10 and 11 of the judgment as under “9. So far as Issue 1 is concerned i.e. as to whether the appellant got married with Smt Ranju Sarma, is a pure question of fact. All the three courts below have given concurrent finding regarding the factum of marriage and its validity. It has been held to be a valid marriage. It is a settled legal proposition that if the courts below have recorded the finding of fact, the question of reappreciation of evidence by the third court does not arise unless it is found to be totally perverse. The higher court does not sit as a regular court of appeal. Its function is to ensure that law is being properly administered. Such a court cannot embark upon fruitless task of determining the issues by reappreciating the evidence. 10. This Court would not ordinarily interfere with the concurrent findings on pure questions of fact and review the evidence again unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying the departure from the normal practice. '9.….The position may undoubtedly be different if the inference is one of law from [the] facts admitted and proved or where the finding of fact is materially affected by violation of any rule of law or procedure.” * * * 11. '9.….The position may undoubtedly be different if the inference is one of law from [the] facts admitted and proved or where the finding of fact is materially affected by violation of any rule of law or procedure.” * * * 11. Thus, it is evident from the above that this Court being the fourth court should not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the courts below as the said courts have exercised their discretion in good faith giving due weight to relevant material and without being swayed by any irrelevant material. Even if two views are possible on the question of fact, we, being the fourth court, should not interfere even though we may exercise discretion differently had the case come before us initially. In view of the above, we are not inclined to interfere with the finding of fact so far as the issue of bigamy is concerned nor the quantum of punishment on this count is required to be interfered with.” 17. In case at hand, learned counsel for revisioner has not been able to bring to notice of this Court, any circumstance indicating that concurrent findings of the Courts below is perverse or incorrect in any manner. Therefore, I am satisfied that the Courts below correctly appreciated the evidence available on record and rightly came to the conclusion that revisioner committed the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC. This being the position, I find no reason to interfere with concurrent findings of the Courts below holding revisioner guilty for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC. 18. So far as the second limb of argument of the counsel for applicant on sentence is concerned, the dispute arose between the two real brothers when they were doing their agricultural activity in their respective agricultural field, the assault was not due to some old enmity but in heat of passion on account of quarrel on the day. Applicant is facing rigour of criminal case against him for past twelve years, has underwent 16 days of the jail sentence during trial and revision and, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, ends of justice will be served if the substantive jail sentence awarded to the applicant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 19. In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed. 19. In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining conviction of the applicant under Section 326 IPC, he is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for the period already undergone by him. Sentence of fine is, however, maintained along with its default clause.