ORDER : 1. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 14.02.2023 passed by the Principal Sessions Court at Puducherry in Crl. A. No. 44 of 2022, by confirming the judgment dated 25.08.2022 passed in C.C. No. 63 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate -II, Puducherry. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) appearing for the respondent-Police and perused the materials available on record. 3. The respondent-Police registered a case against the petitioner and others in Crime No.19 of 2017 on 13.03.2017 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 326 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. The respondent-Police, after completion of investigation, laid a charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Puducherry and the same was taken on file in C.C. No. 63 of 2017. 4. After trial, the learned Magistrate found the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 326 IPC, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. However the trial Court not found the petitioner guilty of the offences under Sections 294(b), 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and he was acquitted of those charges. 5. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed an appeal in Crl. A. No. 44 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge at Puducherry. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the arguments, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner, by confirming the judgment and conviction passed by the learned Magistrate. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court by filing this revision petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, already case in counter was filed. Though the de-facto complainant and A1 to A3 admitted their guilt, the Courts below failed to consider the same. P.Ws.1 to 3 are relative witnesses who are interested witnesses and due to personal motive, they filed a false case as against the petitioner. Though P.Ws.4 and 7 who are independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has not declared them as hostile witnesses. Though the Doctor who was examined as P.W5 admitted that the scan report and x-ray report and the same were not marked as exhibits. Prosecution failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts. Though P.Ws.4 and 7 who are independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has not declared them as hostile witnesses. Though the Doctor who was examined as P.W5 admitted that the scan report and x-ray report and the same were not marked as exhibits. Prosecution failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts. The Doctor put a suggestion that when a person fell down, there is a possibility of having such injury. Recovery of weapon was not proved by the prosecution. Though independent witnesses were present at the time of alleged occurrence, none of the independent witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. There was no corroboration between evidence of prosecution witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 with independent witnesses. 7. The trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence, especially evidence of P.Ws.4, 5 and 7. Though the petitioner was acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323 read with Section 34 of IPC, even in the absence of medical evidence, the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 326 of IPC. Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Principal Sessions Court, Puducherry. The appellate Court has also not appreciated the material evidence produced by the petitioner and the grounds taken by the petitioner in the appeal, simply endorsed the views of the learned Magistrate and dismissed the appeal. Hence the present revision is filed by the accused. 8. The learned Special Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) appearing for the respondent/Police submitted that P.W.2 is the victim who has clearly spoken about the commission and involvement of the petitioner in the offfence. There is specific over tact as against the petitioner. P.Ws.2 and 3 are eye witnesses and their evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence. P.W.5-Doctor has also clearly spoken about the injuries sustained by the victim. From the medical records, it is seen that the injuries sustained by the victim are grievous in nature. In the Accident Register, it is stated that P.W.2 was assaulted by his neighbours. The petitioner is a known person to the victim, who has clearly deposed about the commission of offence by the petitioner before the trial Court, during trial. Though P.Ws.2 and 3 are relative witnesses, there is no reason to discard their evidence. Their evidence is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.5. The petitioner is a known person to the victim, who has clearly deposed about the commission of offence by the petitioner before the trial Court, during trial. Though P.Ws.2 and 3 are relative witnesses, there is no reason to discard their evidence. Their evidence is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.5. The trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence on the side of prosecution, though found the petitioner not guilty of the offences under Sections 294(b) and 323 IPC read with 34 IPC, however, the accused was found guilty of the offence under Section 326 IPC. The appellate Court has also re-appreciated the evidence and confirmed the sentence passed by the trial Court. There is no merit in the revision petition and hence the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. The specific case of the prosecution is that on 13.03.2017, there was a wordy quarrel between the parties and the accused assaulted the victim with cement stone and thereby caused injuries to the victim. 10. In order to substantiate the case of the prosecution,before the trial Court, on the side of the prosecution, totally eight witnesses were examined and 11 documents have been marked. Besides, one material object was also marked. On the side of the defence, no oral and documentary evidence was produced. Out of eight witnesses, the victim was examined as P.W.2. One of the eye witness was examined as P.W.1 who made the complaint and had set the law in motion, has supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.3 is one of the eye witnesses. The victim P.W.2 has clearly spoken about the commission of offence and involvement of the petitioner in the said offence. P.Ws.2 and 3 are the eye-witnesses who have supported the case of the prosecution. Evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 are reliable and cogent. Though P.Ws.1 to 3 are relatives, their evidence was corroborated by the evidence of P.W.5 and also medical records Exs.P.4 and P5. 11. It is settled proposition of law that defect in the investigation is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. The injured witness was examined as P.W.2 who has clearly spoken about the occurrence and the same was supported by medical evidence and records. 11. It is settled proposition of law that defect in the investigation is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. The injured witness was examined as P.W.2 who has clearly spoken about the occurrence and the same was supported by medical evidence and records. P.Ws.2 and 3 who are eye witnesses are relative witnesses and their evidence cannot be simply discarded, unless the defence establishes that there is much deliberation in their evidence only to support the victim. Evidence of P.W.2 clearly shows that P.Ws.1 and 3 were present at the place of occurrence and they have seen the occurrence. They are also cited as eye-witnesses. Their evidence is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2 being the injured witness. Medical evidence also supports the same. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court that neither report nor document was marked through Doctor. It is for the prosecution to mark it. Mere defect in the investigation is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. However, P.W.1, who is the eye-witness had set the law in motion by giving complaint before the respondent-Police and also took the victim P.W.2 to the hospital. Accident Register entry shows that the victim was assaulted by neighbours and the same was corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. The trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence and convicted the petitioner. The appellate Court as a fact finding Court, also re-appreciated the evidence and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. 13. The scope of the revision petition is very limited and the revisional Court, while dealing with the revision has to see as to whether there is any perversity in appreciation of the evidence. It is a well settled proposition of law that the Revisional Court cannot sit in the arm chair of the appellate Court and re-appreciate the entire materials and it is not open to this Court to sit in this revision over the factual findings arrived at by both the Courts below. 14. On a reading of entire materials, this Court finds that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is cogent and reliable. Appreciation of evidence by the trial Court and re-appreciation of evidence by the appellate Court, do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality or perversity. 14. On a reading of entire materials, this Court finds that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is cogent and reliable. Appreciation of evidence by the trial Court and re-appreciation of evidence by the appellate Court, do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality or perversity. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the judgment passed by both the Courts below, when the victim who is injured and also an eye- witness, has clearly spoken about the incident, which is supported by medical evidence. This Court does not find any perversity in judgment of the trial Court as confirmed by the appellate Court. There is no merit in the revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. Since the revision petitioner/accused is on bail, the trial Court is directed to secure his custody to undergo the remaining period of sentence, if any.