:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVN.APPLICATION NO.480 OF 2004 Ningappa Chandrakant Wade and anr. ... Applicants versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent ... Mr. Arjun H. Patil, for the Applicants. Mr. R.Y. Mirza, A.P.P., for the Respondent. ... CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. 1st February 2005 P.C.: . Heard Counsel for the parties. It was argued by the Counsel for the Applicants that the Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence on record and have placed reliance on evidence of interested witnesses to record finding of guilt against the Applicants. This submission does not commend to me. It is not open for this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction to reappreciate the evidence on :2: record to take a different view of the matter. Two courts have considered the evidence of respective prosecution witnesses and having found that the evidence was trustworthy accepted the said evidence to record finding of guilt against the Applicants. In that view of the matter, no fault can be found with the said approach. Therefore, no interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is warranted. 2. It was next contended that in any case, having regard to the nature of injury as sustained by the victim, the offence cannot be one under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, but a lesser offence under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. This submission clearly overlooks the fact that the injury certificates have been admitted by the defence as is noted in para 14 of the order of the trial Court. The medical officer has clearly opined that the injury caused to P.W. 4 Razak Nadaf is grievous injury. That opinion is not questioned by the defence. It is in that backdrop the appellate Court proceeded to hold that conviction as recorded by the trial Court under section 326, :3: Indian Penal Code, is appropriate. No fault can be found with the said view. Accordingly, there is no substance even in this contention raised before this Court. 3. Counsel for the Applicants wanted some document to be taken into account to support his argument that the injury was not grievous injury. It is not open for the revisional Court to look into the document, which has not been proved in evidence and not exhibited. Counsel fairly accepts that the document, which he intends to rely on, is not proved in evidence. On the other hand, as mentioned earlier, the defence admitted the injury certificate, Exhibit 50-51, as noted by the trial Court which mentions that the injury was fracture injury of nose, which was a grievous injury. Hence, there is no substance in this argument. 4. Accordingly, the revision fails and the same is rejected. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.)