JUDGMENT P. N. Goel, J. 1. FAROOQ appellant has been convicted and sentenced under section 307 IPC to undergo R. I. far 4 years. 2. FAROOQ appellant and Ahmad Noor Khan (PW 2), victim of assault, were partners in a business. The partnership came to an end. A sum of Rs. 375 - was payable by the appellant to Ahmad Noor Khan. Farooq promised to pay the said sum within 2-3 days on demand made by Ahmad Noor Khan 3 or 4 days before 21st March, 1976. On 21-3- 1976 at about 5 P. M. Ahmad Noor Khan was at the shop of Munna sweatmest seller (PW 3) in Purana Ganj. The appellant rushed there and fired a shot from the back side of Ahmad Noor Khan. Ahmad Noor Khan was injured at the back of his head. Farooq then said that he would kill him immediately. Some persons intervened. The appellant ran away. Ahmad Noor Khan went to the police station Ganj, district Rampur and lodged report at 5. 30 P.M. On the date of occurrence at 6.30 P. M. Dr. V. K. Misra examined Ahmad Noor Khan and found following injury: A lacerated circular wound 1/4 cm. x 1/4 cm. x 1/2 cm. deep, marigns inverted, blackening around the wound present no scorching and tattooing present around the wound, on the back head left side 9 cm. posteriorly to left ear base. 3. DR. G. K. Jain X-rayed the injury. After seeing the X-ray, DR. V. K. Misra declared the injury simple. He did not find any injury to the bones of the head. 4. THE appellant did not admit the allegations of the prosecution. On facts the prosecution examined Ahmad Noor Khan and Munna sweat- meat seller (PWs. 2 and 3). On the other side the appellant examined 3 persons . Hari Om Agarwal, Shabbir Ahmad and Akbar Shah (D. Ws. 1 to 3) to depose that no occurrence took place as alleged. 5. ON an appraisal of the entire evidence on record the learned I Additional Sessions Judge Rampur held that the case of the prosecution was proved and reliance would not be placed on the testimony of the defence witnesses. Consequently the appellant was convicted. 6. 1 to 3) to depose that no occurrence took place as alleged. 5. ON an appraisal of the entire evidence on record the learned I Additional Sessions Judge Rampur held that the case of the prosecution was proved and reliance would not be placed on the testimony of the defence witnesses. Consequently the appellant was convicted. 6. SRI P. C. Chaturvedi, Advocate for the appellant urged that it was a case falling under section 324 IPC and that a sentence of 2 years' RI would be adequate. The learned State counsel urged that it was a case falling under section 307 IPC and that the sentence of 4 years, RI did not deserve any reduction. SRI P C. Chaturvedi could not assail the prosecution version and the conviction of the appellant. It is evident that the parties were doing partnership business which had come to an end and that a sum of Rs. 375/- only was due to Ahmad Noor Khan from the appellant. 3 or 4 days before the occurrence Ahmad Noor Khan made a demand of the said sum. On that day the appellant promised to pay the said amount within 3-4 days. There is nothing to show that the appellant ever refused to pay the said sum or quarrelled with Ahmad Noor Khan in connection with the payment of the said sum. This circumstance goes to indicate that the appellant could not have an intention to commit the murder of Ahmad Noor Khan. 7. ANOTHER fact which is apparent on the record is that the appellant fired a country made pistol from blackening , around the wound. The shot had entered about 1" into the brain. It did not cause any injury to the bone of the head. Therefore, Dr. V. K. Misra expressed the opinion in his supplementary report dated 1-4-1976 (Ex. Ka 2) that the injury was simple. Dr. Misra kept the injury under observation. There is nothing on record to show that subsequent to 1-4-1976 the condition of Ahmad Noor Khan in any way deteriorated. In his statement on oath Dr. V. K. Misra stated that the injury could cause death but he did not state in the supplementary report that the injury could cause death. Had he written so in the supplementary report he should have characterised the injury as grievous. In his statement on oath Dr. V. K. Misra stated that the injury could cause death but he did not state in the supplementary report that the injury could cause death. Had he written so in the supplementary report he should have characterised the injury as grievous. Section 320 IPC lays down that any hurt which endangers life is 'grievous'. If really death could be a result of the injury in question as stated by Dr. V. K. Misra, he should have mentioned the injury as 'grievous'. But he mentioned the injury "simple". Therefore, it cannot be held that the injury in question was dangerous to life or could cause death. It appears that the intention of the appellant was to cause a simple injury to the victim with a fire-arm and that his intention was not to cause his death. 8. IN the circumstances discussed above, the case does not seem to fall within section 307 IPC and that it squarely falls under section 324 IPC. A sentence of 2 year's RI taking into account the circumstances of the case and the nature of injury caused, will meet the ends of justice. 9. APPEAL is partly dismissed and party allowed in this way that the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 307 IPC to undergo RI for 4 years recorded by the I Additional Sessions Judge Rampur are set aside; instead the appellant is convicted under section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years. The appellant is on bail. He shall surrender forthwith to serve out the sentence, failing which he shall be arrested. --- APPEAL partly allowed.