ORDER : 1. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , challenging the judgment dated 28.04.2007 in Criminal Appeal No. 325 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court–II, Pathanamthitta, arising out of C.C. No. 478 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court–II, Pathanamthitta. The revision petitioner herein is the 2 nd accused in the above case. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 15.06.2003 at about 8.40 p.m., the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, criminally trespassed into the courtyard of the house of PW1 to PW3 situated at Thekkuthodu Ward in Thannithodu Panchayath. It is alleged that the 1 st accused inflicted an injury on the left leg of PW3 with a chopper. Thereafter, the 2 nd accused inflicted injuries on the left upper arm, chest, and left ear of PW1 with a chopper, and the 1 st accused inflicted injuries on the lip and forehead of PW2 with a chopper. The motive alleged is previous enmity arising from the marriage of the sister of the accused with PW3, which was a love marriage. Thus, the accused are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 447 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code . 3. During the trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses as PWs 1 to 8 and marked Exts. P1 to P6. The learned Magistrate, on appreciation of the evidence, found the 2 nd accused guilty of offences punishable under Sections 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC and convicted him. The case against the 1 st accused was split up and refiled. 2 nd accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 324 read with . In default of payment of the fine, the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month. For the offence under Section 447 , the 2 nd accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. It was further directed that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. It was also ordered that, if the fine amount is realised, Rs. 1,000/- each shall be paid to PW1 and PW2 and Rs. For the offence under Section 447 , the 2 nd accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. It was further directed that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. It was also ordered that, if the fine amount is realised, Rs. 1,000/- each shall be paid to PW1 and PW2 and Rs. 500/- to PW3 as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure . 4. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 325 of 2005 before the Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta. The learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track–II, Pathanamthitta, dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/2nd accused. Aggrieved thereby, the 2 nd accused has preferred the present revision petition. 5. Heard Sri. Jacob P. Alex, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and Smt. Anima M., learned Public Prosecutor. The records have also been perused. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that both the trial court and the appellate court erred in appreciating the evidence in its proper perspective and recorded a conviction without proper evaluation of the facts and circumstances of the case. According to the learned counsel, both the said courts had placed reliance on the evidence of PW1 to PW3 without taking note of the fact that they are interested witnesses and their evidence is not corroborated by other independent evidence. 7. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is nothing to interfere with the well-considered order passed by the Appellate Court. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the evidence of PW1 to PW3 is convincing, reliable, mutually corroborative, and is capable of inspiring the confidence of the Court. Therefore, according to the learned counsel Public Prosecutor, their evidence can safely acted upon without any further corroboration. 8. Before examining whether any interference with the impugned judgment is warranted, it must be borne in mind that the scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited. It is well settled that a revisional court may interfere with the judgments or orders of the trial court and the appellate court only when they suffer from illegality, impropriety, or material irregularity. Unless the findings recorded by the courts below are shown to be perverse, wholly unreasonable, based on misreading of evidence, or rendered without consideration of relevant material, interference in revision is not warranted. Unless the findings recorded by the courts below are shown to be perverse, wholly unreasonable, based on misreading of evidence, or rendered without consideration of relevant material, interference in revision is not warranted. A revisional court cannot assume the role of an appellate court and reappreciate the evidence merely because another view is possible. 9. In State of Kerala v. Jathavedan Namboodiri, AIR 1999 SC 981 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus: “In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of Supervisory Jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an Appellate Court nor can it be treated even as a second Appellate Jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice.” 10. As evident from the records, it was the evidence of PW1 to PW3 that formed the basis for conviction in this case. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 reveals that they also sustained injuries in the incident. The said fact is well established by the medical evidence adduced in this case. Undisputedly, the evidence of injured witnesses occupies a special status in law. It is well settled by a catena of judicial pronouncements that injured witnesses carry a built-in guarantee of their presence at the scene of occurrence, and in the ordinary course of human conduct, they would not falsely implicate any person, particularly when such implication would allow the real assailant to escape punishment. Therefore, it is a well-established principle that convincing and cogent reasons are required to discard the testimony of an injured witness. Significantly, in the present case, the evidence of PW1 to PW3 with respect to the overt acts attributed to the accused is mutually corroborated. Therefore, it is a well-established principle that convincing and cogent reasons are required to discard the testimony of an injured witness. Significantly, in the present case, the evidence of PW1 to PW3 with respect to the overt acts attributed to the accused is mutually corroborated. Though they were subjected to lengthy cross-examination, nothing was elicited to discredit their testimony, except for minor inconsistencies which do not go to the root of the prosecution case. 11. Moreover, the evidence of PW1 to PW3 finds sufficient corroboration from the medical evidence on record. Immediately after the incident, PW1 and PW2 sought treatment at the Government Hospital, Pathanamthitta. The doctor who clinically examined them was examined as PW7, and the wound certificates issued by him were marked as Exts. P3 and P4. During examination, PW7 categorically deposed that on the date of occurrence, he examined PW1 and PW2, and both of them had approached the hospital with the history of assault. 12. A conjoint reading of the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and the medical evidence clearly establishes that the injuries corresponding to the overt acts attributed to the accused are noted in the medical examination of PW1 and PW2. 13. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the main overt acts are attributed to the 1 st accused and the conviction of the 2 nd accused is not justified. However, it cannot be lost sight of the fact that the prosecution case is that the offence was committed in furtherance of the common intention of both the accused. While considering whether the 2 nd accused shared common intention with the 1 st accused, it is relevant to note that the incident occurred within the courtyard of PW1 to PW3. The fact that the 2 nd accused accompanied the 1 st accused to the place of occurrence itself indicates participation in the common design to attack PW1 to PW3. Therefore, the conduct of the 2 nd accused in accompanying the 1 st accused to the scene of occurrence and his active participation in the commission of the offence is sufficient to establish common intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code . Consequently, the 2 nd accused is also liable for the acts committed by the 1 st accused in furtherance of the said common intention. 14. Consequently, the 2 nd accused is also liable for the acts committed by the 1 st accused in furtherance of the said common intention. 14. Moreover, specific overt acts are attributed to the 2 nd accused as well, including allegations of assault on PW1 with a dangerous weapon. However, the weapon alleged to have been used was indeed neither recovered nor marked in evidence in this case. While considering the effect of non-recovery of the weapon, it must be noted that to attract Section 324 IPC , there must be evidence that hurt was caused by means of a dangerous weapon or instrument. 15. In the present case, the evidence of PW1 to PW3 clearly reveals that the accused used a chopper to inflict injuries. However, the weapon was neither recovered nor produced before the court. Nevertheless, it is well settled that there is no inflexible rule that recovery or production of the weapon is mandatory for sustaining a conviction under Sections 324 or 326 IPC . 16. It is a matter of common knowledge that the disposal of the weapon after the commission of the offence is ordinarily within the exclusive knowledge of the accused. Therefore, if the accused fails to disclose the whereabouts of the weapon, the prosecution cannot be faulted for non-recovery alone. At the same time, the prosecution is expected to explain the non-recovery of the weapon. However, non-explanation of such recovery, by itself, is not fatal when there is otherwise reliable evidence establishing the guilt of the accused. 17. In the present case, apart from the evidence of PW1 to PW3, there is consistent medical evidence showing that PW1 and PW2 sustained serious injuries in the incident. As already mentioned, in the medical examination conducted immediately after the incident, injuries were noted on the bodies of PW1 and PW2. The doctor who examined PW1 and PW2 has also opined that the injuries could have been caused by a weapon of the nature described by the witnesses. Therefore, the non-recovery of the weapon is not fatal to the prosecution case, particularly when the medical evidence corroborates the ocular testimony. It is further relevant to note that the injuries are serious in nature and were inflicted on vital parts of the body, which clearly rules out the possibility of self-infliction. 18. Therefore, the non-recovery of the weapon is not fatal to the prosecution case, particularly when the medical evidence corroborates the ocular testimony. It is further relevant to note that the injuries are serious in nature and were inflicted on vital parts of the body, which clearly rules out the possibility of self-infliction. 18. It is well settled that recovery of the weapon of offence is not a sine qua non for sustaining a conviction under Sections 324 or 326 IPC . Non-recovery of the weapon is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution case, particularly when there is reliable ocular evidence. When such ocular evidence is duly corroborated by medical evidence, non-recovery of the weapon becomes inconsequential. In Lakhan Sao v. State of Bihar, (2000) 9 SCC 82 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that mere non-recovery of the weapon does not discredit the prosecution case where there is otherwise trustworthy ocular evidence. Similar principles have been reiterated in Mritunjoy Biswas v. Pranab alias Kuti Biswas, (2013) 12 SCC 796 , Sanjeev Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. (2015) 11 SCC 69 , Rakesh v. State of U.P. (2021) 7 SCC 188 and State through Inspector of Police v. Laly alias Manikandan,  2022 SCC OnLine SC 1424. The non-recovery of the weapon would assume significance only if the medical evidence is wholly inconsistent with the ocular testimony so as to render the prosecution case doubtful. 19. In the above circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the well-considered judgment of the trial court as confirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge. However, having regard to the nature and age of the incident, the relationship between the parties, and other attending circumstances, I am of the view that the sentence imposed by the appellate court is somewhat harsh and warrants modification. Moreover, no criminal antecedents are seen pointed out against the revision petitioner. Accordingly, some leniency has to be shown in the matter of sentence. 20. In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. While confirming the conviction, the sentence imposed for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 447 of the IPC is modified as follows: (i) For the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC , the 2 nd accused shall undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and shall pay an amount of Rs. While confirming the conviction, the sentence imposed for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 447 of the IPC is modified as follows: (i) For the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC , the 2 nd accused shall undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and shall pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- each to PW1 and PW2 as compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure . In default of payment of the compensation, the 2 nd accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. (ii) For the offence punishable under Section 447 IPC , the 2 nd accused shall pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days. iii) The 2 nd accused shall appear before the trial court on 27.07.2026 to receive the sentence. With the aforesaid affirmation of conviction and modification of sentence, the Criminal Revision Petition stands allowed in part.