JUDGMENT Oza, J.- l. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant from jail against his conviction under section 302 IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge Alirajpur. The appellant is present in person and heard. 2. The prosecution case at the trial was that on the date of the incident i. e., 28-7-1975 at about 3-30 or 4-00 in the afternoon one Abarsingh, who is the brother of the appellant, was stealing ears of maize corn from the field of the complainant. The complainant Dhuliya saw this and abused Abarsingh and said that he was stealing away maize from his field everyday. Abarsingh thereupon went to his house. Thereafter the complainant Dhuliya, his brother Kaliya and wife of Kaliya Bhurli, went to their other field for cutting juwar crop. At about 5-30 the appellant came there with a bow and arrow and abused the party of the complainant and said. "You have blamed my brother falsely. I will kill you". Saying this, he put an arrow on the bow and shot at Kaliya. The arrow struck Kaliya on the left side of his chest. Kaliya fell on the ground and the appellant ran away from there. Dhuliya thereafter pulled out the arrow from the chest of Kaliya and went to call the choukidar; but as the choukidar was not available he brought the choukidars's brother Dhundhla. It is alleged that Kaliya told Dhundhla all about the incident. Thereafter Kaliya was put on a cot and brought home, but shortly thereafter he breathed his last. 3. Report of the incident was lodged at police station Sorwa by Dhuliya. The police seized the arrow pulled out from the body of Kaliya and prepared a memo of the spot and an inquest on the dead body. One Nanchiya claims to have seen the incident from a hillock and the police during investigation also prepared a memo showing that from that hillock the scene of occurrence is visible. The body of Kaliya was sent for post mortem examination and it was found that the arrow had pierced the lung and also injured the heart. The cause of death was shown to be injury to the lung and heart. On trial the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. 4. The body of Kaliya was sent for post mortem examination and it was found that the arrow had pierced the lung and also injured the heart. The cause of death was shown to be injury to the lung and heart. On trial the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. 4. P. W. 1 Dhulia in his statement stated that the arrow was struck by the appellant at his brother Kaliya. He also states that when the body of Kaliya was brought home it was sunset. He also stated that the arrow struck Kaliya on the left side of the chest. The statement given by Dhuliya is supported by P. W. 4 Dhundhla. He states that when he arrived on the scene he asked Kaliya as to what had happened and Kaliya told him that it was the appellant who shot an arrow at him. P. W. 6 Bhurli, who was present on the scene of occurrence, has also stated that the appellant asked as to why they have attributed theft to his brother and saying this he shot an arrow which hit Kaliya on the left side of his chest. Kaliya fell on the ground and the appellant ran away She also states that Dhuliya pulled out the arrow from the chest. Nanchiya who was examined by the prosecution did not support the prosecution and has been declared hostile. The learned Court below accepting the testimony of eye-witnesses convicted the appellant under section 302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. 5. As regards the incident, Dhuliya and Bhurli have categorically stated that it was the appellant who shot the arrow which struck the deceased on the left side of his chest. This evidence of these two eye-witnesses is further corroborated by the first information report and also the dying declaration proved by Dhundhla. The Court below accepted this testimony and, in our opinion, it could not be said that the court below committed any error in accepting this testimony: 6. The appellant has been convicted for an offence under section 302 IPC. To maintain a conviction under that section it has to be established that the appellant inflicted an injury with intention to cause death and for that purpose it is necessary to hold that the injury was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. The appellant has been convicted for an offence under section 302 IPC. To maintain a conviction under that section it has to be established that the appellant inflicted an injury with intention to cause death and for that purpose it is necessary to hold that the injury was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. In the present case, the medical expert has not been examined. The post-mortem report has been admitted in evidence without the examination of the doctor and with an admission by the defence counsel saying that "genuineness admitted". It appears that the learned Judge did not examine the doctor, although he was present on 14-6-1977, on the basis of the admission by the defence counsel that genuineness of the post-mortem report is admitted. This is what is observed by the learned Judge in the order-rheet dated 14-6-1977. It appears that the learned Judge relied on section 294 of the Code of Criminal procedure to hold that formal proof of the document, i. e., the post-mortem report, is not nece5sary as its genuineness is not disputed. 7. The post-mortem report is the findings of an expert on the basis of which the opinion is given about cause of death, nature of injury and its effect or connection with death. Such opinion evidence is admissible under section 45 of the Evidence Act and it could not be disputed that an opinion could not be admitted in evidence without the evidence of the expert. The genuineness of the Post-mortem report may not be disputed; but the contents thereof, i, e., facts observed by the doctor and the opinion as to the cause of death, nature of injury and the effect of injury are matters which could only be admitted in evidence under section 45 of the Evidence Act. And under section 45 the opinion could only be admitted in evidence if the expert is examined in Court as the mere certificate is not evidence. It cannot be doubted that section 294 of the Code of Criminal procedure does not in any way modify the law of evidence. Section 294 of the Code only talks of dispensing with the formal proof of certain documents the genuineness of which is not in dispute: "294. It cannot be doubted that section 294 of the Code of Criminal procedure does not in any way modify the law of evidence. Section 294 of the Code only talks of dispensing with the formal proof of certain documents the genuineness of which is not in dispute: "294. No formal proof of certain documents.- (1) Where any document is filed before any Court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document. (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government. (3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code without proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed: Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved." Apparently, therefore, when the learned Judge obtained the signatures of the defence counsel on the document saying that genuineness is not disputed, it only means that the signatures of the doctor on the post-mortem report need not be proved. But by admitting this document in evidence it could not become expert evidence as required under section 45 of the Evidence Act. The defence counsel having accepted the genuineness of the document could not be estopped from cross-examining the expert on the findings arrived at by him and on the opinion given by him. And as the doctor has not been examined in the case, his opinion about the cause of death and about the effect of the injury could not be used in evidence against the appellant. The observations made by the doctor during the post-mortem examination that the injury caused by the arrow injured the lung and heart also could not be used in evidence without the evidence o~ the doctor. In this view of the matter, therefore, the post. The observations made by the doctor during the post-mortem examination that the injury caused by the arrow injured the lung and heart also could not be used in evidence without the evidence o~ the doctor. In this view of the matter, therefore, the post. mortem report although admitted in evidence, still, there being no expert evidence to indicate that the arrow which hit the deceased on the chest had what effect and how the death of the person could be connected with the injury, on its basis the conviction of the appellant' under section 302 IPC could not be maintained. 8. The evidence of eye-witnesses only goes to show that an arrow shot by appellant struck the deceased on the left side of his chest. It is therefore established that appellant by his act caused hurt by sharp and pointed weapon on the left side of the chest. A hurt which endangers life will fall within the definition of grievous hurt and as the arrow was shot which struck on the left side of chest it could safely be inferred that this may endanger life. Therefore, in absence of medical evidence it could he held that appellant inflicted by a sharp and pointed weapon a grievous hurt and that would fall within the ambit of section 326 IPC. 9. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part. The conviction of the appellant under section 302 IPC is set aside and instead he is convicted for an offence under section 326 IPC. The sentence of imprisonment for life also is set aside and he is instead awarded rigorous imprisonment for seven years under section 326 IPC.