JUDGMENT 1. - This is a jail appeal preferred by Bhana, who was convicted under f Section 326 IPC. by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara by his judgment dated November 6, 1974 and was sentenced to undergo five years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 501/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. Mr. Bhandari has assisted this Court by appearing on behalf of the appellant. 2. The prosecution story as disclosed by the evidence of Ratanlal PW 2 is that the appellant Bhana entered the house of the complainant at about 12 noon on April 17, 1974 and went inside the room where logs of wood were kept to hide himself. Ratanlal asked him to get out of the room on which Bhana appellant took up a Kulhari, which was lying nearby in that room and inflicted a blow on the head of Ratanlal, who became unconscious and was carried to Bhilwara hospital for treatment. Ratanlal remained as an indoor patient at the Bhilwara hospital for 55 days. A first information report in respect of the occurrence was lodged by Jamna Lal PW 3 at 12.30 p.m. on that very day at the Police Station, Phoolia Kala. It was stated in the first information report, which is Ex. P/6 on record, that on hearing the news that somebody had struck Ratanlal with an axe, Jamnalal went to the house of Ratanlal who is his uncle's son and found that Ratanlal was lying on a cot with a wound on his head and was profusely bleeding and on making an inquiry from the people who had collected on the spot, Jamnalal came to know that Bhana appellant was seen running out of the house of Ratanlal with a Kulhari in his hand towards Bamno-ki-gali by Raj Narain and it appeared there from that the appellant had caused the injury on the head of Ratanlal. A challan was put up in the Court of Munsiff Magistrate, Bhilwara, who committed the appellant for trial before the learned Sessions Judge Bhilwara. After holding the trial the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. Hence this appeal. 3. Mr. Bhandari submitted that the solitary testimony of Ratanlal PW 2 should not be believed as he has contradicted himself from his earlier police statement. After holding the trial the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. Hence this appeal. 3. Mr. Bhandari submitted that the solitary testimony of Ratanlal PW 2 should not be believed as he has contradicted himself from his earlier police statement. I have read the statement of PW 2 Ratanlal with care and attention and so far as the essential and material part of his statement is concerned, there is hardly any variation between his police statement and his testimony in Court. As already stated above, Ratanlal clearly stated that Bhana appellant had entered his house and was hiding in the room where logs of wood very lying and that when Ratanlal objected to his hiding there and asked him to get out of the house, he picked up a Kulhari, which was lying nearby and inflicted a blow with it on the head of Ratanlal. Ratanlal PW 2 has consistently named Bhana appellant as his assailant. Moreover, the statement of Raj Narain PW 4, who has stated that at about 12 or 12-30 in the noon he saw appellant Bhana going out from the house of Madho Dhobi i.e. father of Ratanlal with a Kulhari in his hand and that he ran away towards Bamno-ki-gali and threw the Kulhari near the wall of the house of Jagannath Dhobi. Raj Narain has stated that at that time he was standing outside his flour mill, which is situated nearby, PW 6 Tejmal has stated in bis cross-examination that a man standing outside the flour mill of Raj Narain could very well see a person coming out of the house of Madho Dhobi, which is situated at about 100 paces from the flour mill of Raj Narain. Thus the testimony of Ratanlal that the appellant inflicted a blow on his head with an axe, when be asked him to get out of the room in his house is fully corroborated from the statement of Raj Narain PW 4 who saw the appellant running out of the house of Ratanlal with an axe in his hand at about the same time when the occurrence is alleged to have taken place. It is also to be noted in this respect that the first information report was lodged within half an hour of the occurrence and the name of Bhana appellant was mentioned there in as the assailant on the basis of the information collected by Jamnalal on the spot. Thus there is sufficient corroboration of the testimony of Ratanlal that it was the appellant Bhana, who had struck him with an axe on his head. The learned Sessions Judge was, therefore, justified in placing reliance upon his testimony for holding that it was Bhana who had inflicted a blow with an axe on his head. 4. PW 1 Dr. Ashok Kumar Chopra, who examined the injured at 3.30 p.m. on April 17, 1974 found that there was an incised would 6" x 6" on the left side of the parietal region of the head of Ratanlal with a fracture of the skull. He also found that the patient was then in a semi-conscious condition and bis condition was serious and lie was unable to give a statement properly. There was initially some conflict of medical opinion as to whether the injury on the head of Ratanlal was inflicted with a sharp weapon or not, as according to Dr. Chopra; the injury was an incised wound, while PW 8 Dr. N.B. Sharma thought it was otherwise. Thereafter a Medical Board was constituted, consisting of three members with Dr. Jai Narain PW 9 as Chairman and Dr. P.J. Shah and Dr. N.K. Gambhir, as members. The aforesaid Medical Board agreed with Dr. Chopra and opened that the injury on the head of Ratanlai was an incised wound which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death as it was quite serious. PW 9 Dr. Jai Narain proved the report of the Medical Board which is Ex. P/17 on record in which it was stated that the first medical report made by Dr. Chopra should be considered as more authentic in respect to the nature of the injury caused on the head of Ratanlal. because Dr, Chopra had examined the injured in the first instance while the wound was fresh. P/17 on record in which it was stated that the first medical report made by Dr. Chopra should be considered as more authentic in respect to the nature of the injury caused on the head of Ratanlal. because Dr, Chopra had examined the injured in the first instance while the wound was fresh. From the aforesaid evidence it is well established that an incised wound was inflicted on the head of Ratanlal with a sharp weapon which caused the fracture of the skull and the said injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It is, of course, true that the appellant had no previous enmity with Ratanlal nor there was any earlier reason for him to inflict a blow upon Ratanlal. It appears that the appellant apprehended that he might be assaulted by some other people who were chasing him and in order to take shelter from those persons he entered the house of Ratanlal, but as Ratanlal objected to his hiding in his house and asked him to get out therefrom, he took the Kulhari, which was lying nearby in the room, where the logs of wood were kept and hit Ratanlal on his head with it. From the circumstances of the case it does not appear that the appellant intended to cause death of Ratanlal or to inflict such bodily injury to him which might have caused his death. However, from the evidence on record it is fully established that the appellant picked up the axe and inflicted a blow with it on the head of Ratanlal and in these circumstances it must. be held that he had certainly an intention to inflict a grievous hurt to Ratanlal. It is established beyond doubt that the appellant did cause grievous hurt to Ratanlal, In those circumstances the learned Sessions Judge was perfectly justified in convicting the appellant under Section 326 IPC. 5. However, looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, namely that the appellant himself was apprehending an assault at the hands of some other persons who were chasing him and that he wanted to take shelter in the house of Ratanlal despite the objection of Ratanlal, in order to save himself from those other persons, I consider it proper that the sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment would meet the ends of justice in the present case. The sentence of fine of Rs. 501/- awarded by the learned Sessions Judge is also reduced to Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. The appellant shall be entitled to a set off the period during which he remained under detention during investigation, inquiry or trial. 6. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and while the conviction of the appellant under Section 326 IPC is maintained, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine the appellant shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. *******