JUDGMENT : S. Acharya, J. - This is an appeal against the judgment of conviction passed in sessions Case No. 14/70-G/42 of 1970-G (G.D.C.)convicting the Appellant u/s 307, Indian Penal Code and sentencing him thereunder to R.I. for five years. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that the informant p.w. 1 the Sarapanch of Bansalundi Grama Panchayat, was returning on the date of occurrence (20-4-1970) at about 12 mid day from Bhanjanagar to his village on a cycle on the road just near the house of the Appellant, the Appellant came near the informant with a Kati (M.O.I.) concealed underneath his Chader and dealt one blow n his left temporal region. P.w. 1 fell down from his cycle, whereupon the Appellant dealt another stroke on his left ear. While p.w. 1 was getting on and was trying to snatch away the Kati from the hand of the Appellant, he sustained another cut injury between his right index and middle fingers. P.W. 1 however was successful in snatching away the Kati from the hand of the accused. Thereafter the accused ran inside his house and brought a Bhusa (M.O.II) to assault p.w. 1, but p.ws. 2, 3 and 4: who were nearby, intervened and the accused therefore went back to his house. P.w. 1 with p.ws. 2, 3 and 4 went to the police station and logged the F.I.R. (Ext.1). P.w. 1 also deposited the Kati, M.O.I., which he had seized from the possession of the accused, in the police station. The police subsequently seized the Bhusa M.O.II from the house of the accused after investigation and commitment proceeding, the accused was tried for an offence u/s 307, Indian Penal Code and he has been convicted and sentenced as stated above. 30 The accused's plea is one of complete denial. 4. P.w. 1 the informant and p.ws. 2, 3 and 4 the other three eye witnesses' to the occurrence have very consistently narrated the prosecution case as to how the accused dealt blows on p.w. 1 with the Kati M.O. I while he (p.w. 1) was going on a cycle dose to the house of the accused. 5. Mr. 4. P.w. 1 the informant and p.ws. 2, 3 and 4 the other three eye witnesses' to the occurrence have very consistently narrated the prosecution case as to how the accused dealt blows on p.w. 1 with the Kati M.O. I while he (p.w. 1) was going on a cycle dose to the house of the accused. 5. Mr. Parija,' the learned Counsel for the Appellant, urged that p.w. 2, the Grama Rakhi does not in categorical terms state that p.w. 1 snatches away the Kati from the hand of the accused when the third blow was aimed on him as stated by p.w. 1. I do not find any inconsistency in the evidence of p.ws. 1 and 2 to the above effect. p.w. 1 has stated so while narrating the incident in a little more detail. p.w. 2 has stated that while the accused was aiming the third blow at him he warded off the same, and a little later in his deposition he has also stated that p.w. 1 snatched away the Kati from the hand of the accused. So in effect p.w. 2 has stated all that has been stated by p.w. 1, though p.w. 2 did not state everything in detail. P.ws. 3 and 4 have in clear terms corroborated p.w. 1 to the above effect and have stated that when the third blow was aimed at p.w. 1 he snatched away the Kati and in the process he got an injury in between his right index and the middle fingers. So there is no material discrepancy or inconsistency in the evidence of p.ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 to the above effect. Their evidence in all other respects is quite consistent and convincing. 6. Mr. Parija further submitted that p.w. 2 was the Grama Rakhi of the village while p.w. 1 was the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat and p.w. 3 admittedly was supplying water in the house of p.w. 1, and so both of them being under the influence of p.w. 1 were not capable of not supporting the case of p.w. 1 irrespective of its truth. p.w. 1 admittedly was not the Sarpanch at the time when p.ws. 1, 2 and 3 deposed in the trial Court. p.w. 1 admittedly was not the Sarpanch at the time when p.ws. 1, 2 and 3 deposed in the trial Court. So there is no reason as to why p.w. 2, the then Grama Rakhi of the village, would have felt obliged to support the case of p.w. 1 in order to implicate the accused in a case of this nature. Merely on the admission of p.w. 3 that he being a Gauda by caste, was for some time supplying water in the house of p.w. 1, the veracity of his otherwise convincing evidence is not in any way tainted. Noting has been elicited from p.w. 4 as to why he would come and perjure in a Court of law against the accused and implicate him in this case. 7. The accused has admitted in his statement u/s 342, Code of Criminal Procedure that on the date of occurrence an incident took place between him and p.w. 1 and in that incident p.w. 1 caught hold of the accused, but he somehow extricated himself from the clutches of p.w. 1. Having admitted the aforesaid incident with p.w. 1, the accused does not state anything as to how the injuries found on the person of p.w. 1 by the doctor p.w. 6 soon after the incident were caused in that incident. p.w. 6 examined p.w. 1 within a short time after the occurrence and found as many as 8 injuries on his person. Out of them injury Nos. 1 to 6 were incised wounds which could have been caused by M.O.I., and injury Nos. 7 and 8 were abrasions. According to the doctor p.w. 6, injury Nos. 2, 3 and 4 could have been caused by a single stroke with M.O.I. The doctor has also opined that injury No. 5 could have been caused by a fall on a sharp cutting weapon. Injury Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 found by p.w. 6 on the person of p.w. 1 corroborate the eye-witness account about the infliction of the injuries on p.w. 1. Injury Nos. 5, 7 and 8 were possibly caused due to the fall of p.w. 1 from his bicycle after receiving the first blow from the accused. 8. Injury Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 found by p.w. 6 on the person of p.w. 1 corroborate the eye-witness account about the infliction of the injuries on p.w. 1. Injury Nos. 5, 7 and 8 were possibly caused due to the fall of p.w. 1 from his bicycle after receiving the first blow from the accused. 8. On a perusal of the evidence on record and its discussion in the impugned judgment I am satisfied that the prosecution has been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused who, with the Kati, M.O.I. caused injury Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 on p.w. 1. 9. Mr. Parija at last urged that even if it is found that the Appellant caused the above-mentioned injuries on p.w. 1, on the evidence on record and the nature of the injuries it cannot be said that the Appellant caused those injuries with the intention of causing the death of p.w. 1 or with the intention or knowledge of causing such bodily injury as would come within any of the other three clauses of Section 300, Indian Penal Code; and so the Appellant cannot be held guilty of the offence u/s 307, Indian Penal Code. On a perusal of the evidence on record, the injury report (Ext. 3) and the deposition of the doctor p.w. 6, I find that the above mentioned contention of Mr. Parija is well founded. None of the incised injuries caused by the accused was of a severe nature. The first incised wound on the left temporal region was 1?" ? ?" ? ?"; injury No. 2 on the left mastoid region was 1?" ? ?" ? ?"; the third incised wound on the left ear was 1" ? 1/8" ? 1/8"; the fourth incised wound on the left ear was 1" ? 1/8" ? 1/8" and the sixth incised wound between the right index and middle fingers was ?" ? ?" ? ?". So none of the said incised injuries was any way sufficient to endanger life. 1/8" ? 1/8"; the fourth incised wound on the left ear was 1" ? 1/8" ? 1/8" and the sixth incised wound between the right index and middle fingers was ?" ? ?" ? ?". So none of the said incised injuries was any way sufficient to endanger life. Rather from the dimensions and the nature of the injuries it does not appear that the accused actually intended to inflict any such blow on p.w. 1 with either the intention to kill him or with the intention or knowledge to cause any such bodily injury on him as would come within the other three clauses of Section 300, Indian Penal Code. In Sarju Prasad Vs. State of Bihar it has, been held that it is for the prosecution to establish that the intention of the Appellant in causing the particular injury to the injured was of any of the kinds referred to in Section 300, Indian Penal Code, for unless the prosecution discharges that burden the offence u/s 300, Indian Penal Code cannot possibly be brought home to the Appellant. In Rekha Mandal's case 1968 S.C.D. 208. it has been held that Section 307. Indian Penal Code requires that the act must be done with the intention or knowledge of causing injuries which were dangerous to life or under such circumstances that if death be caused by that act the offence of murder will emerge. In this reported case as many as 17 injuries were inflicted with Farsa. Spear and Lathis. One of those injuries which was on the head and was presumably given with a Farsa, was 5" in length and 3/4" in width and was bone deep and another injury on the neck was 2" long, 1/4" in width and out skin deep. Medical evident did not disclose that the injuries were cumulatively dangerous to life. Their Lordships on a consideration of the nature of the injuries and the medical evidence held that on the facts of the requirements of Section 307, Indian Penal Code were not fulfilled and accordingly altered the conviction from Section 307, Indian Penal Code to Section 324, Indian Penal Code. 10. There is nothing on record to indicate that the accused fostered within himself the desire to kill p.w. 1. 10. There is nothing on record to indicate that the accused fostered within himself the desire to kill p.w. 1. If he had any such intention he could at the first instance have easily dealt a more severe injury on p.w. 1, as on the evidence on record he was attacked unawares. Again there was nothing to prevent the accused to deal a more severe and fatal blow with M.O.I. on p.w. 1 when he fell-down on the ground from his cycle after receiving the first blow. The injuries on no consideration were dangerous to life. 11. On the above considerations it cannot be said that the accused in inflicting those injuries intended to kill p.w. 1 or intended to cause on p.w. 1 any such injuries which would come within any of the other three clauses of Section 300, Indian Penal Code. So the conviction of the Appellant u/s 307, Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. Some of die injuries on p.w. 1 may however he technically said to be grievous as they may possibly come within the sixth clause of Section 320, Indian I Penal Code, but none of them was of any severe nature. On that consideration the Appellant can at best be convicted u/s 326, Indian Penal Code. 12. In the result, therefore, the conviction of the Appellant u/s 307, Indian Penal Code is set aside and instead he is convicted u/s 326, Indian Penal Code. It appears from the records that by now the Appellant is undergoing R.I. in jail for more than three years after his conviction in the Court below. That period of imprisonment is-sufficient for his conviction u/s 326, Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, for his conviction u/s 326, Indian Penal Code he is sentenced to R.I. for the period already undergone by him in jail. So he be released from the jail forthwith. 13. The appeal is allowed in part. Final Result : Allowed