Short Note : 1. The prosecution case, in brief, was that the complainant Nathu accompanied by Habda and Chamsing went to see Holi. Rateniya abused him and wanted to beat him, Tadvi Jhukar prevented him from doing so. When Nathu and others were returning appellant Maithu struck him with an arrow which hit him on his back. Nathu took out the arrow. Balsingh came with Paliya and told him that he would cut his head and snatched the arrow from him. Both the accused ran away. The report was lodged by Nathu on the same day. After investigation the appellants were prosecuted under section 307/34, IPC. The appellants denied their guilt: After, they were convicted and sentenced as stated above. The appellants have challenged their conviction and sentence in these appeals. Held : It has now to be seen as to what offence has been committed by the accused. There is no evidence to prove the nature of the injury. The doctor has not been examined and therefore, the injury report though filed has not been proved. In the circumstances the conviction of the appellants under section 307/34, I.P.C cannot be sustained. According to the complainant the arrow was shot on the back. The depth of the injury was also not proved. The accused, therefore, can only be convicted under section 324/34, I.P.C. The conviction, therefore of the appellants under 307/34, I.P.C is set aside and they are acquitted of the charge instead they are convicted under section 324/34, I.P.C. Appeal partly allowed.