ORDER : V Srishananda, J. Heard Sri S.B. Sangolagi, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State. 2. Revision petitioner is the accused who suffered an order of conviction in C.C No.360/2011 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Yadgiri, for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 326, 323, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced as under: Offence punishable under Section Punishment Fine Default Sentence 504 IPC 06 months simple imprisonment Rs.1,000/- 02 months simple imprisonment 323 IPC 06 months simple imprisonment Rs.1,000/- 02 months simple imprisonment 326 IPC 03 years rigorous imprisonment Rs.5,000/- 01 year simple imprisonment 506 IPC 06 months simple imprisonment Rs.1,000/- 02 months simple imprisonment 3. Validity of the said order of conviction and sentence was questioned before the District and Sessions Judge, Yadgir, in Criminal Appeal No.2/2016. 4. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records heard the arguments of the parties and on re- appreciation of the material evidence on record, by the judgment dated 11 th August 2020 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Judge. 5. Being further aggrieved by the same accused is before this Court in this revision petition. 6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that to substantiate that injured Sharanappa examined as PW-1 sustained grievous injuries, there is no material on record except the wound certificate and therefore recording an order of conviction is incorrect for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sought for allowing the revision petition. 7. Per Contra, Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned judgments. 8. Having heard the parties in detail, this court perused the material on record meticulously. 9 On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that as is enunciated by the prosecution, on 09.05.2011 there was a quarrel and the complainant sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Gurmitkal. 10. In fact, based on the MLC report over telephone, police visited the Government Hospital, Gurmitkal and on enquiry with the complainant, the complaint came to be registered. 11. Prosecution placed on record evidence of the complainant witness as well as Doctor Who issued the wound certificate vide Ex. P-4. 12. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Gurmitkal. 10. In fact, based on the MLC report over telephone, police visited the Government Hospital, Gurmitkal and on enquiry with the complainant, the complaint came to be registered. 11. Prosecution placed on record evidence of the complainant witness as well as Doctor Who issued the wound certificate vide Ex. P-4. 12. Material object used in the incident are broken water pipe and talwar. Seizure mahazar and spot mahazar are also placed on record which would corroborate the oral testimony of the complainant who is the injured witness. 13 It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that testimony of injured witness is to be kept on higher pedestal while appreciating the material evidence on record. PW-1 having been the injured why would he allow the culprit to escape from clutches of law and falsely implicate the revision petitioner in the incident remains unanswered by the defence. 14. Crowning all these aspects of the matter, revision petitioner has denied all incriminatory materials and did not chose to place any defence evidence on record. 15. Based on these aspects of the matter learned trial Judge recorded an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. 16. What is pertinent to note is that except Ex P-4 the oral testimony of the doctor there is no material on record which would be sufficient enough to maintain the order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. 17. No doubt, in Ex. P-4, injury noted by the doctor is classified as grievous injury on account of the fact that CT scan report shows fracture of the parietal bone. 18. In a matter of this nature unless prosecution places on record the original X-ray film or radiological report or the CT scan report, conviction of the offender under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code is impermissible. 19. View of this court is supported by the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of State vs. Sheenappa Gowda and others reported in 2010 SCC Online Kar 5294 where in it is held as under: “18. Therefore, the question for determination is limited to find out whether the said injury No. 2 is proved to be a grievous injury sustained by PW. 4. Therefore, the question for determination is limited to find out whether the said injury No. 2 is proved to be a grievous injury sustained by PW. 4. It is well settled that in criminal cases, the burden of proving the guilt of the accused is always on the prosecution and that burden would not shift unless there is a presumption or defence as enumerated in the Penal Code, 1860 is taken by the accused. In this case, the defence taken by the accused is one of denial. It is clear from the evidence of PW. 1 that he has given description of injury on physical examination of PW. 4 and has come to the conclusion that there was fracture of the middle phalanx. It is well settled that when the prosecution alleges that grievous injury has been caused, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove the same beyond resonable doubt. The evidence of PW.1. would only show that there was injury as described in the wound certificate - Ex.P2. When PW. 1 suspected such fracture, he ought to have referred the injured - PW. 4 for taking X-ray to confirm his finding that there is fracture of middle phalanx. It is now well settled hat unless the prosecution produces the X-ray for confirmation of fracture opined by the Doctor on medical examination clinically it cannot be said that the accused have caused grievous injury of fracture. It is true that in the cross-examination of PW. 1, the learned Counsel appearing for the accused has not disputed the nature of injuries spoken to by PW.1. However, he same would not dispense with the production the X-ray by the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the injured had sustained fracture of middle phalanx, which is an opinion given by PW. 1 Doctor only on clinical examination of PW. 4, the injured. Therefore, it is clear that the finding of the learned Sessions Judge holding that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 have committed the offence punishable under Section 326 of I.P.C. and the offence committed by them falls within the ambit of Section 324 of I.P.C. is justified.” 20. 4, the injured. Therefore, it is clear that the finding of the learned Sessions Judge holding that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 have committed the offence punishable under Section 326 of I.P.C. and the offence committed by them falls within the ambit of Section 324 of I.P.C. is justified.” 20. Applying the principles of law stated in the case of Sheenappa supra to the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the absence of placing original radiological report or original CT scan report conviction of the accused under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code is impermissible. 21. Unfortunately learned Judge in the First Appellate Court failed to appreciate these aspects of the matter. 22. Even though the scope of this court in revision is limited, since there is patent factual error in appreciation of material evidence on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code needs to be scaled down to one under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, having regard to the blood injury caused using Talwar and water pipe. 23. Accordingly, the order of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code is scaled down to one under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, while maintaining the conviction of the revision petitioner for the remaining offences. 24. Having said thus, taking note of the fact that this Court has scaled down from Section 326 to Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, custody period of two months already undergone by the accused is treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine in a sum of Rs.75,000/- of which a portion of the fine amount if paid to PW-1 as compensation, ends of justice would be met. 25. Hence the following: ORDER (i) Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) Conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby set aside and his acquitted for the said offence. Instead revision petitioner is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. 25. Hence the following: ORDER (i) Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) Conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby set aside and his acquitted for the said offence. Instead revision petitioner is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) For the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code custody period already undergone by the petitioner is treated as period of imprisonment and also for the remaining offences by enhancing fine amount in a sum of Rs.75,000/- payable on or before 31 st July 2025. (iv) Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount on or before 31 st July 2025, petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. (v) Out of the fine amount of Rs.75,000/- a sum of Rs.60,000/- is order to be paid as compensation to PW-1 in terms of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure under due identification. (vi) Balance amount of Rs.15,000/- is to be appropriated to the State Government towards defraying expenses. (vii) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this order for issue of modified conviction warrant, forthwith.