JUDGMENT Chandra Prakash, J. This is an appeal against the order dated 18.4. 1973 of Sri M. Wahajuddin, Sessions Judge, Etawah convicting appellant Sheo Chand under Section 307 I. P. C. and sentencing him to four years' R. I. Therewas a school in village Balpur, police station Airwakatra in the district of Etawah. In that school Rama Kant (P. W. 2) grandson of Babu Ram (P. W. 1) used to read. One Ram Bharosey uncle of Sheo Chand appellant and brother of Ram Prasad was the President of the above said school. There was a handpump in that school, but it refused to work after some time for providing water to the school children. Ram Prasad, father of the appellant, removed the handpump from the school premises and fixed it in his own well. On 17101969 Rama Kant went to the aforesaid handpump, but Ram Prasad did not allow him to drink water on the ground that Rama Kant was spoiling the water of the well itself. Rama Kant went in disgust and informed his grandfather, Babu Ram (P.W. 1). At about 3.30 P.M. Babu Ram went to Ram Prasad aforesaid in order to protest against his action in disallowing his grandson to drink water from the aforesaid handpump. Exchange of abuses followed and there was a scuffle also between Ram Prasad on the one hand and Babu Ram, on the other. Sheo Chand appellant was also there and when he saw the scuffle he went inside his house, brought a knife and stabbed Babu Ram (P.W. 1). Witnesses including Sri Kishan (P. W. 3), Vijai Bahadur (P.W. 6) arrived and the appellant and his father ran away. The First Information Report (Ex.Ka/l) of the incident was lodged by Babu Ram (P.W. 1) at 8.35 P.M. at the police station Airwakatra. A case against the appellant and his father was registered and investigated. The appellant and his father were challenged under Section 307 I.P.C. The appellant and his father Ram Prasad pleaded not guilty. They admitted that Rama Kant was refused to have water from the aforesaid handpump. Their defence was that Babu Ram (P.W. 1) complainant came armed with a knife, threw Rani Prasad on the ground and sat on his chest. Sheo Chand appellant came from behind, caught ho?d of Babu Ram and dragged his left hand, which contained the knife and while h? Their defence was that Babu Ram (P.W. 1) complainant came armed with a knife, threw Rani Prasad on the ground and sat on his chest. Sheo Chand appellant came from behind, caught ho?d of Babu Ram and dragged his left hand, which contained the knife and while h? was dragging, the knife struck Babu Ram himself on his chest. The prosection examined eight witnesses in support of its story including three eyewitnesses. Appellant and his father Ram Prasad produced no defence. After considering the entire evidence on record, the court below came to the conclusion that no offence was brought home to Ram Prasad. Ram Prasad was accordingly acquitted. The court below, however, found appellant guilty under Section 307 I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced him as already noted above. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has come in appeal before me. It is contended on his behalf that his conviction under section 307 I. P. C. is not warranted by the testimony on record. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State at length and after going through the record I have come to the conclusion that the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 I. P. C. cannot be allowed to stand. Instead, he must be convicted under Section 324 I.P.C. The prosecution story set up by the prosecution was narrated by Bapu Ram (P. W. 1) from the beginning to the end. He also proved the First Information Report Ex.Ka/l. His testimony was corroborated by Sri Krishna (P. W. 3) and Vijai Buhadur (P. W. 6). The court below has doubted the presence of Sri Krishna (P. W. 3) and Vijai Bahadur (P. W. 6) and has excluded their testimony from consideration. The testimony of Sri Krishna and Vijai Bahadur appears to have been rightly discarded by the court below. Dr. I. D. Misra (P. W. 8) examined the injuries of Babu Ram (P. W. 1). He found the following injuries : "Incised wound 4" x 1/2" x 1/2" on the left side of chest in 7th rib region from posterior Axillary line up to interior axillary line 3" below left nipple. Underlying fracture of rib was suspected. Advised xray." The above injury was simple. He found the following injuries : "Incised wound 4" x 1/2" x 1/2" on the left side of chest in 7th rib region from posterior Axillary line up to interior axillary line 3" below left nipple. Underlying fracture of rib was suspected. Advised xray." The above injury was simple. The xray result was not produced in the case in order to show that the injury received by Babu Ram contained any fracture or in any way it was grievous. No doubt, Dr. I. D. Misra (P. W. 8) has stated that had the knife entered further the injury might have proved dangerous. It does not show that the injury received by Babu Ram itself was dangerous, In this view of the matter, the injury inflicted on Babu Ram (P. W. 1) makes out a case of simple hurt by the knife and not the case of an attempt to murder. Babu Ram (P. W. 1) narrated the entire prosecution story from the beginning to the end. He remained unshaken in his crossexamination. His statement is supported by the First Information Report Ex.Ka/l which was made at the police station Airwakatra without any loss of time and which is, a strong piece of corroborative evidence in the case. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that according to the First Information Report, the venue of the incident was near the handpump while according to the appellant, the venue of the incident was a place in front of appellant's house. A perusal of the First Information Report Ex.ka/lshows that the scuffle started from the well and during the scuffle the struggling parties proceeded towards the house of the appellant. It cannot, therefore, be said that the prosecution has changed the venue of incident. My attention was also drawn to certain trivial discrepancies or omissions which are on matters collaterals and not of importance in the case. Babu Ram (P. W. 1) is therefore, a reliable eyewitness. It was further contended on behalf of the appellant that the witnesses of the locality who were present, have rot been produced in the case. That may be so. Babu Ram (P. W. 1) is therefore, a reliable eyewitness. It was further contended on behalf of the appellant that the witnesses of the locality who were present, have rot been produced in the case. That may be so. But, what I have to see in the case is whether the testimony of Babu Ram (P. W. 1) is reliable or not and once his testimony is held to be reliable, the appellant has to be convicted notwithstanding the fact that the other witnesses who might have been produced have not been produced. The earliest of version of the incident was given by the appellant on 211971 before the Committing Magistrate. There the defence of the appellant was that there was a scuffle between Babu Ram (P. W. I.) on the one hand and Rani Pd., appellants father, on the other. Babu Ram threw Ram Pd. on the ground and wanted to stab him with a knife. Appellant snatched that knife from him and injured Babu Ram. Even if this statement is taken to be true, the appellant had no right to inflict any knife injury on Babu Ram, for, the moment he snatched the knife from the hands of Babu Ram. Babu Ram was disarmed and he was incapacitated to inflict any injury on Ram Pd. Further, no attempt was made to show that Ram Pd., appellants father received any injury. In this view of the matter, the appellant had no right to inflict any injury on Babu Ram in selfdefence after the knife from Babu Ram had been snatched. In the court below the appellant took the defence that Babu Ram sat on the chest of Ram Pd. and he had a knife in his left band with which he wanted to inflict an injury on Ram Pd. The appellant came from behind and dragged Babu Ram and in that scuffle the knife of Babu Ram scratched his chest. The suggestion is that the injury was caused to Babu Ram by Babu Ram himself by his own knife. No reliance could be placed on this suggestion for it is belied by the earliest defence taken by the appellant which has already been noted above. He did not take this defence on 211971. Secondly, no suggestion was made in the crossexamination of any witness that Babu Ram had a knife in his left hand. No reliance could be placed on this suggestion for it is belied by the earliest defence taken by the appellant which has already been noted above. He did not take this defence on 211971. Secondly, no suggestion was made in the crossexamination of any witness that Babu Ram had a knife in his left hand. No suggestion was even made that Babu Ram was a lefthander. If he was not a lefthander, normally the knife would have been in his right hand and Dr.I.D. Misra specifically stated that no injury could have been caused to Babu Ram if the knife was in his right hand, The defence set up by the appellant in the court below is, therefore, belied by the medical evidence on record. The appellant tendered no evidence and, therefore, it was rightly disbelieved. For reasons given above, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 307 I. P. C. is set aside. Instead, the appellant is convicted under Section 324 I. P. C. and is sentenced to six months' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 250/ (Rs. Two hundred fifty only). Out of this amount of Rs. 250/, Rs. 150/ (Rs. One hundred fifty only) will be paid to Babu Ram (P. W. L) complainant when realised. In default of the payment of fine the appellant shall undergo a further R. I. of three months.