JUDGMENT Chandra Prakash, J. This is an appeal against the order dated 30673 of Sri R. B. L. Khandelwal, IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur convicting appellant Santoo under section 307 I. P. C. and sentencing him to five years R. I. The appellant Santoo is the first cousin of the complainant Man (P. W. (1) Ganga Dei (P. W. 2) is the wife of the complainant. Both the complainant and the appellant reside in village Rooma, police station Maharajpur in the district of Kanpur. The prosecution story in brief was as follows : On 21111972 the daughter of Man (P. W. 1) and Ganga Dei (P. W. 2) was taking her cattle for grazing at about 12.30 P.M. The complainant Man (P.W. 1) and his wife Ganga Dei (P. W. 2) were sitting at their door. The cattle spoiled cowdung cakes of the appellant. This infuiiated the appellant he began to abuse the daughter. Ganga Dei (P. W. 2) took exception to it. On this the appellant became angry, entered into his house, brought a Pharsa and then assaulted Ganga Dei (P. W. 2) and injured her. The incident was seen by the witnesses including Prem Narain Misra (P. W. 3). The First Information Report Ex. Ka 1 of the incident was lodged by Man (P. W. 1) at the police station Maharajpur at 1.30 P. M. The case was investigated and the appellant was challaned. The appellant pleaded not guilty. He denied to have assaulted Ganga Dei (P. W. 2) altogether. His defence was that he was falsely implicated on account of enmity. The prosecution examined six witnesses in support of its story including three eye witnesses. The appellant produced no defence. After considering the entire evidence on record the court below found the appellant guilty under section 307 I. P. C. and sentenced him as already noted above. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has now come in appeal before me. lt was contended on behalf of the appellant that his conviction under section 307 I. P. C. is not warranted by the lestimony on record. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state 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. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state 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 was narrated by Man (P. W. 1) from the beginning to the end. He also proved the First Information Report Ex. Ka/1. The testimony of Man (P. W. 1) was corroborated by Ganga Dei (P. W. 2) and Prem Narain Misra (P. W. 3). The paper Ex. Ka/1 is the First Information Report lodged by Man (P. W. 1) at the police station Mahrajpur at 1. 30 P. M. The incident is alleged to have taken place at 12.30 P. M. The police station was at a distance of two miles from the scene of the incident. There was, therefore, no delay in making the First Information report. It is, theiefore, a strong piece of evidence in the case. The place of incident is not disputed. The incident took place in front of the dcor of Man (P. W. 1) who is the husband of Ganga Dei (P. W. 2) who was the victim. The presence of Man (P. W. l) at the time of the incident is, therefore, natural. He remained unshaken in crossexamination and there is hardly any reason to discredit his testimony. He is, therefore, a reliable eye witness. Ganga Dei (P. W. 2) also supported the prosecution story. The report of Dr. Anand Khanna (P. W. 4) shows that she received the following injuries : 1. Incised wound 4" x 1/2" x under observation on right side of skull 5" above right pinna. No tattooing seen. 2. Incised wound 21/2" x 1/4" x under observation on right side of forehead. No tattooing. 3. Incised wound 3 1/3" x 2" x 1/4" under observation on top of left shoulder tattooing anteriorly and downwards. 4. Incised wound 4 1/4" x 1/4" x under observations 1/2" behind injury no. 3. 5. Abrasion 1/4" x 1/4" just interior to injury no. 3 lower part. 6. Abrasion 1/4" x 1/4" just interior to injury no. 3 upper part. 7. Contusion 5" x 4" in back of right shoulder kept under observation. 4. Incised wound 4 1/4" x 1/4" x under observations 1/2" behind injury no. 3. 5. Abrasion 1/4" x 1/4" just interior to injury no. 3 lower part. 6. Abrasion 1/4" x 1/4" just interior to injury no. 3 upper part. 7. Contusion 5" x 4" in back of right shoulder kept under observation. The presence of Ganga Dei at the time of the incident is, therefore, unquestionable. His testimony was challenged on the ground that before the Committing Magistrate stated the time of the incident as 8.30 A. M. vide Ex. Kha/1, while in the court below she gave the time of incident as 12.30 P. M. as alleged by the prosecution. Ganga Dei (P. W. 2) thumb marked her statement. This shows that she is an illiterate village woman who could hardly be expected to depose about time by the watch. It was elicted on behalf of the appellant in the crossexamination of Ganga Dei (P. W. 2) herselt that she had no idea of minutes and hours. The discrepancy between her statement Ex. Kha/1 given before the committing Magistrate and her testimony in the court below, therefore stands explained. Otherwise there is hardly anything in her testimony to reject it on the whole she is, therefore, also a credible eye witness. Prem Narain Misra (P. W. 3) is a neighbour of the parties. His presence is also natural. He is an independent witness having no motive of any kind to depose against the appellant falsely. Prem Narain Misra is also, therefore, a believable eyewitness. The defence of the appellant, as suggested in the crossexamination of the eyewitnesses, was that Ganga Dei (P. W. 2) had two other sisters and their father had given the entire property to Ganga Dei and her husband to their exlcusion and they were, therefore, on daggers drawn with the appellant. They had a quarrel with Ganga Dei at the time of the incident at 8.30 P. M. and these sisters caused axe injuries to her. The above suggestion was repudiated by the prosecution witnesses, to whom it was put. There is no evidence in support of it. As a matter of fact, no such defence was taken by the appellant himself either in his statement under section 342 Cr. P. C. made in the court of the committing Magistrate or in the court below. The above suggestion was repudiated by the prosecution witnesses, to whom it was put. There is no evidence in support of it. As a matter of fact, no such defence was taken by the appellant himself either in his statement under section 342 Cr. P. C. made in the court of the committing Magistrate or in the court below. It is in evidence that there was a dispute between the appellant on the one hand and Man (P. W. 1) on the other. The appellant, therefore, had a motive to assault and the immediate motive was furnished by the trampling of the cowdung cakes by the complainant's daughter's cattle. According to the case of the appellant himself there is a bad blood between Ganga Dei (P. W. 2) on the one hand and her two sisters on the other, who have been disinherited. The appellant has gone a step further. He has stated that these sisters resided with the appellant. tt follows that the sister of Ganga Dei (P. W. 2) were with the appellant. According to the suggestion made in the crossexamination of the eyewitnesses the assault was made by the sister of Ganga Dei who are inimical towards her. A person may implicate his enemy falsely, but he will be the last person to screen the real offender. According to the appellant, tbe assailants were the sisters of Ganga Dei (P. W. 2) who inimical towards her. She had not the slightest soft corner in her heart to shield them. There is, therefore, overwhelming evidence in the case to establish that it was the appellant who caused the above noted injuries to Ganga Dei (P. W. 2) in the manner set up by the prosecution. Paper Ex. Ka/3 is the Xray report prepared by one R. Prakash, who has not been produced in the case. It is not suggested that R. Prakash is now dead or not available. The Xray report prepared by R. Prakash is, therefore, inadmissible in evidence. Paper Ex. Kha 4 is the supplementary report prepared by Dr. Anand Khanna (P. W. 4) on the basis of the Xray report Ex. Ka 3 and Dr. Khanna came to the conclusion after seeing the Xray report that injury no. 1 received by Ganga Dei may have proved fatal. The statement of Dr. Anand Khanna (P. W. 4) based on his supplementary reportEx. Anand Khanna (P. W. 4) on the basis of the Xray report Ex. Ka 3 and Dr. Khanna came to the conclusion after seeing the Xray report that injury no. 1 received by Ganga Dei may have proved fatal. The statement of Dr. Anand Khanna (P. W. 4) based on his supplementary reportEx. Ka 4 which in its turn is based on Ex. Ka 3 is also inadmissible in evidence and cannot be read in evidence. The orieinal report of Dr. Anand Khanna (P. W. 4) is on record. It is Ka 2. It does not show any of the injuries receivcd by Ganga Dei (P. W. 2) was grievous. It, therefore, follows that the appelicant should be convicted under Section 324 for causing simple injuries to Ganga Dei (P. W. 2) by a Pharsa. In the circumstances, the sentence of one year's R. I. will meet the ends of justice. In the result, the appcal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant undei Section 307 I. P. C. are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under section 324 I. P. C. and sentenced to one year's R.I. The appellant is on bail. He will surrender to his bail bonds in order to serve out the rest of his sentence. .