Short Note : 1. It was alleged by the prosecution that on the night intervening the 30th and 31st January 1975 while Bhangdia (PW 1) was keeping a watch on his field the accused came there with bow and arrows and started uprooting some plants of gram over which Bhangdia was keeping a watch. When Bhangdia (PW1) prevented the accused from doing so, the accused shot an arrow which hit Bhangdia on his stomach Bhangdia (PW1) then raised a cry for help in response to which Vestia (PW2) came to the spot and saw the accused running and Bhangdia (PW1) lying with an injury. On the stomach, A report of this incident was made at the Sendhwa Police 'Station on the following day at about 3 P.M. On this report, an offence under section 307 IPC., was registered and the accused was arrested. 2. On being prosecuted on the aforesaid allegations for offences under section 394 and 307 IPC, the accused pleaded false implication because of previous enmity. The learned trial Judge, however, convicted the accused under section 307 IPC, and acquitted him from the charge under section 394 IPC. This is an appeal from jail. Held: The only question as to what is the offence committed by the accused. The injured person, namely, Bhangdia (PW1) was referred to the medical examination. The doctor who examined him was not examined as a witness in the trial Court but his report (Ex. P-7) was admitted in evidence as the counsel appearing for the accused admitted its genuineness. Even if, as done by the learned trial Judge, evidence of the medical officer could be dispensed with even then the report should have been so clear as to indicate that the injury was in the ordinary course of nature sufficient for causing the death of Bhangdia (PW1). The report (Ex. P-7) only says that the injury is dangerous in nature. For convicting the accused under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, the Court should have specifically found that in case the injured person had died the accused would have been guilty for the murder. It should also have been found that the injury caused by the accused was either sufficient in the ordinary course of nature for causing the death of the victim or inflicted with the intention and knowledge that it was sufficient to cause his death. It should also have been found that the injury caused by the accused was either sufficient in the ordinary course of nature for causing the death of the victim or inflicted with the intention and knowledge that it was sufficient to cause his death. In the absence of any evidence of the doctor, it is not possible to conclude that the injury was of such a nature which was either likely to cause death or which was sufficient to cause the death of the injured man. The conviction of the accused under section 307 IPC, cannot be maintained. In the circumstances discussed above, the conviction of the accused can be maintained only under section 326 of the Indian renal Code. Appeal partly allowed.