1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRI.REVISION NO.148 OF 2008 (SK. HUSSAIN SK. YASIN Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Shri Manoj P. Kariya, Advocate for Revision Applicant. Shri S.S.Doifode, A.P.P. for Respondent /State. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : OCTOBER 15, 2008. 1. This revision is directed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur, partly allowing Criminal Appeal No.6/ 2004, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld the conviction of the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 324 of the Penal Code, but reduced the sentence. This appeal had arisen out of the judgment rendered by the Assistant Sessions Judge, convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 324 of the Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for seven years. 2 2. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that one of the victims P.W. 9 Bajrangprasad Ramprasad Dubey had stated in para 3 of his cross-examination that it was true that he did not know how he received the injury. According to the learned counsel, the Courts below had not considered this version of P.W. 9 Bajrangprasad. This is not so. This sentence in the deposition of Bajrangprasad has been duly considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in his judgment, as may be seen from para 14 of the judgment. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly refused to give importance to this stray sentence in the context of the fact that the applicant had not disputed his presence at the spot and had, in fact, came out with the story of scuffle. 3. The learned counsel next submitted that the weapon had not been referred to the Medical Officer for his opinion. This is also not material. The evidence of circumstantial nature would assume importance if there are no eyewitness. In this case, there are three injured eyewitnesses who have all indicated involvement of the applicant and there is no reason why three of them should be taken as lying. 3 4. The view taken by both, the Assistant Sessions Judge as well as Additional Sessions Judge is proper and does not call for any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court. The sentence imposed is also not harsh and excessive warranting any interference. The revision is, therefore, rejected. JUDGE RR.