ORDER : 1. This criminal revision is filed against the judgment dated 20.01.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 90/2015 whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC) Dhamtari dismissed appeal of applicant and affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.7.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Dhamtari in Criminal Case No. 587/2014 convicting applicant under Sections 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and sentencing him to undergo RI 01 year & 06 months with fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo SI for 01 month. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 06.07.2014 at about 10:00 a.m. applicant had broken the hedge constructed by complainant in her agriculture field and took water to his field without her permission. When husband of complainant asked applicant as to why he took water, the applicant started uttering abusive words; assaulted him by means of iron pickaxe and also gave threat of life. Due to assault made by applicant, left cheek of husband of complainant of pierced and his tooth was broken. Report of incident was made in concerned police station based on which Crime No. 218/14 for commission of offence punishable under Section 294, 323, 506B of IPC was registered. The injured was sent for medical examination to the Christian Hospital, Dhamtari where the doctor examined him and noticed piercing injuries including fracture of tooth vide Ex.P-3. The offence under Section 326 of IPC was also added against applicant because as per report of doctor, the injuries suffered by injured were grievous in nature. During investigation, applicant was arrested, statements of witnesses were recorded and articles were seized in presence of witnesses vide Ex.P-4. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed by police against applicant, followed by framing of charges against him by the Court below under Sections 294, 506B, 326 of IPC. Applicant abjured his guilt and sought for trial. 3. So as to prove complicity of accused/applicant in the crime in question, prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses. Statement of accused/applicant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in which he pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. 4. Applicant abjured his guilt and sought for trial. 3. So as to prove complicity of accused/applicant in the crime in question, prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses. Statement of accused/applicant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in which he pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties and going through the material available in record including evidence of the witnesses, learned Judicial Magistrate, while acquitting the applicant of the charges under Section 294, 506B of IPC, convicted him under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced him in the manner as described in Paragraph No. 1 of this order. Applicant preferred criminal appeal before the Court of Sessions challenging his conviction, which was also dismissed by the impugned judgment. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the judgments of the Courts below are contrary to the law and facts on record. He submits that the trial Court gravely erred in placing reliance on the testimonies of complainant (PW-1) and Bheduram (PW-8) without there being any independent corroboration, particularly when there are so many contradictions and omissions in the statement of Demin Bai (PW-1) and Behduram (PW-8) making their testimonies unreliable. Independent witnesses examined by prosecution are employees of complainant, therefore, could not be termed as independent witnesses. He submits that alleged weapon of offence i.e. pickaxe, was seized but the same was not sent to FSL to ascertain whether there was blood on it and if yes, did it match with the blood of injured. The seizure witnesses have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of prosecution. Hence, the conviction of applicant be set aside. 6. In alternate, learned counsel for applicant submits that if this Court comes to conclusion that there is no perversity in the finding of guilt recorded by trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court, then considering that applicant is the first offender, he remained in custody for total 31 days and during pendency of this revision, a compromise took place between the parties, the sentence imposed upon applicant be reduced to the period which he has already undergone. 7. 7. On the other hand, counsel appearing on behalf of the State supports the impugned judgments and submits that on the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the applicant has been held guilty by two Courts below for commission of offence punishable under Section 326 IPC. He further submitted that in view of the nature of injury resulting in fracture, no leniency should be shown to the applicant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 9. From the evidence available in record it can be seen that the prosecution has proved the allegation against applicant beyond reasonable doubt. Complainant Smt. Damin Bai (PW-1), wife of injured, and injured Bheduram (PW-8) have supported the prosecution case. According to injured Bheduram Sonkar (PW-8), on the date of incident, applicant broke the hedge of their agriculture field and when he was reconstructing it, the applicant started abusing him, assaulted him with pickaxe which pierced into his cheek and his tooth got broken. He remained in hospital for about eight days. His wife Damin Bai, Anup, Ashwini & Hemin Bai were present on spot at the time of incident. This witness was cross-examined by defence but nothing could be elicited from his cross examination which would help the defence in any manner, rather in the cross-examination this witness (PW-8) has denied the suggestion that during scuffle, he fell down on pointed stone and suffered injury on his cheek. PW-1 Smt. Damin Bai, wife of injured, has stated in line with the evidence of her husband (PW-8) that seeing her husband reconstructing hedge of agriculture field, applicant started abusing him and assaulted him by means of pickaxe. Her husband was taken to the hospital and next day she lodged complaint of incident in police station. This witness was also cross-examined by defence and perusal of entire cross-examination conducted by defence reveals that no new fact is brought on record except the facts which have been earlier stated by her during her examination in chief. 10. Above evidence of PW-1 & PW-8 gets corroboration from the medical evidence. According to the doctor (PW-3), who examined the injured soon after the occurrence, he noticed one lacerated piercing wound on the cheek with broken tooth, which was grievous in nature and could be caused by an agricultural tool. 10. Above evidence of PW-1 & PW-8 gets corroboration from the medical evidence. According to the doctor (PW-3), who examined the injured soon after the occurrence, he noticed one lacerated piercing wound on the cheek with broken tooth, which was grievous in nature and could be caused by an agricultural tool. The doctor has opined that injuries noticed on injured could be caused by the pickaxe so seized. Testimony of PW-4 Hemi Bai, who is an independent witness, corroborates PW-1 & PW-8 in material particulars. There is absolutely no inconsistency whatsoever in the evidence of PW-8 either in the manner of assault or with regard to involvement of applicant. Thus, from the evidence of PW-8 Bheduram, injured witness, PW-1 Demin Bai & PW-4 Hemin Bai, an independent witness who were present on the spot at the time of incident, involvement of applicant in commission of crime in question is duly established. 11. Even, it is well settled that the testimony of an injured eyewitness has to be accepted if it is by and large credible. The reason being, presence of victim of an assault on the spot cannot be doubted and a victim of an assault would seldom let go the real culprit who injured him and inculpate innocent person in his place. In case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Naresh and Others, (2011) 4 SCC 324 , it was held thus: “27. The evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage being a stamped witness, thus, his presence cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. The witness would not like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely for the commission of the offence. Thus, the evidence of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein.” 12. The witness would not like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely for the commission of the offence. Thus, the evidence of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein.” 12. Insofar as the argument raised by learned counsel for applicant regarding non-sending of seized pickaxe, as recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement of applicant, to FSL for its examination is concerned, non-sending of weapon of offence seized from possession of applicant is indeed a lapse on the part of prosecution, but considering the medical evidence confirming presence of piercing injury on cheek of injured coupled with opinion of doctor that it could have been caused by pickaxe so seized, and also ocular evidence in the shape of complainant (PW-1), injured (PW-8), Hemin Bai (PW-4), an independent witness, who have stated in unequivocal terms that the applicant was the perpetrator of offence and coherently described the act of applicant by which the injured received grievous injury, this Court is of the considered view that non-sending of weapon of offence to FSL is not such a lacuna which would be fatal for the prosecution or a ground for interfering with the conviction of appellant when the commission of offence by applicant is proved from the evidence of injured witness and other corroborative piece of evidence that the applicant assaulted the injured by the said tool or weapon and corresponding injuries are present. In case of State of Punjab vs. Jugraj Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 234 , the prosecution failed to send the weapon of offence i.e. gun, to ballistic expert for examination for his expert opinion and in such a situation the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus: “18......In the presence of convincing evidence of two eye-witnesses and other attending circumstances, we do not find that the non-examination of the expert in this case has, in any, affected the creditworthiness of the version put forth by the eye-witnesses.” 13. True it is that both the seizure witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution except admitting their signature in the seizure memos prepared at the time of alleged recovery of pickaxe from possession of applicant and the trial Court relying upon the statement of Investigating Officer (PW-6) has held that recovery of pickaxe is proved. It is well settled law that the evidence of the investigating officer can be relied upon to prove the recovery, even when the seizure witnesses turned hostile. In Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli vs. State of Gujarat and Others, (2011) 11 SCC 111 it was held has under: “33. In Modan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, (1978) 4 SCC 435 it was observed (at SCC p. 438, Para-9) that where the evidence of the investigating officer who recovered the material objects is convincing, the evidence as to recovery need not be rejected on the ground that seizure witnesses did not support the prosecution version. Similar view was expressed in Mohd. Aslam vs. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 9 SCC 362 .” 14. In the case at hand, PW-6 Investigating Officer has proved the recovery at the instance of applicant by clearly stating that after registration of case, on being produced by applicant, he seized one pickaxe vide seizure memo Ex.P-4, which was in his handwriting and signature. It is not the case of defence that the testimony of the investigating officer suffers from any infirmity or doubt nor anything has been brought on record by the defence to show that the investigating Officer (PW-6) was having any animosity or personal grudge to falsely implicate the applicant. Since nothing has been brought on record against the evidence of the Investigating Officer (PW-6), in the considered opinion of this Court, the evidence of PW-6 cannot be discarded merely because seizure witnesses have turned hostile. The Court below was justified in coming to the conclusion based on testimony of Investigating Officer (PW-6) that prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that pickaxe was seized from the possession of applicant. 15. The trial Court after evaluating the evidence of PW-1 & PW-8 and the medical evidence adduced, found the applicant guilty under Section 326 of IPC and the same has been affirmed by the appellate Court. 15. The trial Court after evaluating the evidence of PW-1 & PW-8 and the medical evidence adduced, found the applicant guilty under Section 326 of IPC and the same has been affirmed by the appellate Court. For interference in concurrent findings of fact in revision, it has to be shown that the findings recorded by the Courts below are based on inadmissible or irrelevant materials or are so perverse that no reasonable person will come to such conclusion on the materials. Learned counsel for applicant 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. This being the position, I am satisfied that the Courts below correctly appreciated the evidence available on record and rightly came to the conclusion that applicant committed the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC. Hence, I find no reason to interfere with concurrent findings of the Courts below holding the applicant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC. 16. As regards quantum of sentence, considering the facts and circumstances of case, in particular that complainant party and applicant are relatives, they have settled the matter out of Court and are presently living in harmony; they have filed application (I.A. No. 2/2024) for permission to compromise, which is duly signed by injured (PW-8); Criminal Revision No. 180/2016 filed on behalf of complainant for sentencing applicant herein with maximum punishment provided under Section 326 IPC is withdrawn vide order dated 9.1.2024 in view of compromise arrived at between the parties; the incident is of the year 2015 which occurred on the spur of moment without any pre-planning or premeditation; applicant is facing rigour of trial for the last more than eight years; applicant has already undergone sentence of 31 days, I am inclined to take lenient view in the matter of sentence and in my opinion, ends of justice shall meet if the applicant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him in place of RI for 1½ years as imposed by the Court below. 17. In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining conviction of applicant under Section 326 of IPC, he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him instead of RI for 1 year & 6 months as was imposed by trial Court. 17. In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining conviction of applicant under Section 326 of IPC, he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him instead of RI for 1 year & 6 months as was imposed by trial Court. Sentence of fine imposed upon applicant is maintained. 18. Applicant is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and the surety stands discharged.