JUDGMENT 1. - Appellant Munshi Ram has been convicted for an offence under section 307 I.P.C. and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu vide his judgement dated 13th of March, 1976. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised only one point before this Court and it is that under the circumstances of this case even if the facts established by the prosecution are taken to be true, the offence does not go beyond 324 I. P. C. It is, therefore, prayed that the appellant be acquitted of the charge under section 307 I.P.C. and be convicted under section 324 I. P. C. 3. Only one injury on the head of Mohar Singh was inflicted by the axe by the appellant, the dimensions whereof were 4" x 1/2 x 1/4" The doctor D. D. Chanana P. W./1 has come in the witness box and has stated that the injury was caused by sharp edged weapon and described it to be grievous in nature as in his opinion the injury was dangerous to life of a man. X-ray was advised by him. in cross-examination the doctor admitted the suggestion given by the learned counsel for the defence that much force was not used by the appellant in inflicting the said injury. It may be mentioned that the X-ray report was not produced by the prosecution. 4. The depth of the injury is only Ij4 ' which shows that enough force was not used by the assailant while inflicting the said injury to the injured. 'This circumstance leads the Court to infer that the assailant never intended to cause death of the injured. It is also to be noted that only one injury was inflicted by the appellant. In such circumstances the conviction under section 307 I P. C. cannot be sustained. It is true that the doctor has described the injury to be grievous in nature but he has not given any date to call this injury grievous. Doctor did not even note down as to what organs were damaged by the injury inflicted by the appellant on the head of Mohar Singh. I find reason for the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the case does not go beyond the purview of section 324 I. P. C. 5. The appeal is, therefore, partly allowed. I find reason for the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the case does not go beyond the purview of section 324 I. P. C. 5. The appeal is, therefore, partly allowed. The appellant is acquitted of the charge under section 307 I. P. C. and instead be is convicted for an offence under section 324 I. P. C. The sentence awarded to the appellant under section 307 I P. C. is set aside and he is sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment under section 324 *******