JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant, Pappu alias Parmanand, against the Judgment dated January 29, 1981, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kota, in Sessions Case No. 35 of 1979. In the Sessions Case aforesaid two person, namely, the accused-appellant, Pappu, and one Prahlad were prosecuted. The appellant was charged with offences under section 307 I.P.C. and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act- Accused Prahlad was charged with offence under Section 307/34 I.P.C. The aforesaid prosecution was in relation to an incident which took place on May 27, 1979 at about 11.15 P.M. at Kota in front of Sunder Dharmshala and near the shop of Kailash Panwala. in the said incident one Narendra Kumar, P.W. 1, sustained one knife injury In the chest. The case of the prosecution is that the relations of the appellant and Narendra Kumar were strained and that at the time of the alleged incident the appellant was standing near the shop of Kailash Panwala and the complainant Narendra Kumar came along with a Barat in Sunder Dharmshala. The case of the prosecution is further that on seeing Narendra Kumar the appellant abused him and inflicted a knife injury on his chest. 2. In support of its case the prosecution has examined ten witnesses out of which Narendra Kumar, P. W. I, Narottam P.W. 2, Anil Kumar, P.W. 3, Moolchand, P.W. 4, and Tulsidas, P.W. 6 are the eye-witnesses of the alleged occurrence. 3. The Additional Sessions Judge, after taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the prosecution, has found that the prosecution has been able to establish that the accused-appellant had inflicted one knife injury on the chest of Narendra Kumar, P.W. 1. The Additional Sessions Judge has however, hold that the said injury which was inflicted on the person of Narendra Kumar could not be said to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In view of the aforesaid finding the Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant of the charge under section 307 I.P.C. The Additional Session Judge convicted the appellant of the offence under Section 326 I.P.C. and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. The Additional Sessions Judge also convicted the accused-appellant of the offence under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. Co-accused, Prahlad, was acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, the appellant has filed this appeal. 4. I have heard Shri A.K. Gupta, the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. Shri A.K. Gupta, the learned counsel for the appellant, has not challenged the finding recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge that the appellant has inflicted one knife injury on the chest of Narendra Kumar, P.W. 1. I have also perused the evidence on record and in my view there is sufficient evidence to support the aforesaid finding recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge. 6. The submission urged by Shri Gupta was that the Additional Sessions Judge has erred in convicting the appellant for offence under Section 326 I.P.C. According to Shri Gupta the appellant could only be convicted of the offence under Section 308 I.P.C. in as much as in the circumstances in which the occurrence took place, the appellant could only have been convicted of the offence of culpable homicide punishable under Section 304 Part 1 I.P.C. if Narendra Kumra, P.W. 1. had died on account of the injury inflicted by the appellant. The submission of Shri Gupta was that since Narendra Kumar, P.W.1. did not die as a result of the injury inflicted by the appellant the only offence for which the appellant can be convicted is the attempt to commit culpable homicide punishable under Section 308 I.P.C. 7. had died on account of the injury inflicted by the appellant. The submission of Shri Gupta was that since Narendra Kumar, P.W.1. did not die as a result of the injury inflicted by the appellant the only offence for which the appellant can be convicted is the attempt to commit culpable homicide punishable under Section 308 I.P.C. 7. A perusal of the provisions contained in Section 307 and Section 308 I.P.C. shows that they make provision for punishment of an attempt to commit certain offence and that while section 307 I.P.C. is linked with the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. Section 308 I.P.C. is linked with the offence of culpable homicide punishable under section 304 Part I I.P.C. Section 307 I.P.C. covers those cases where the act has not resulted in death but if it had resulted in death the offence would have amounted to murder, Similarly Section 308 I.P.C. Covers a case where the act has not reasulted in death but If it resulted in death the offence would have amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In the present case the appellant was charged with an offence under Section 307 I.P.C. on the footing that the injury inflicted by the appellant was such which would have been sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the complainant, Narendra Kumar, and if Narendra Kumar had died the appellant would have been guilty of the offence of murder, but since it did not result in death of Narendra Kumar the appellant was guilty of offence under Section 307 I.P.C. The Additional Sessions Judge has however, found that the injury inflicted by the appellant was not such as which could in the ordinary course of nature cause the death of the complainant. From the evidence adduced by the prosecution it appears that the injury that was inflicted by the APPELLANT was during the course of an altercation between the complainant and the appellant. The appellant inflicted only one injury and it cannot be said that he had acted in a cruel manner. From the evidence adduced by the prosecution it appears that the injury that was inflicted by the APPELLANT was during the course of an altercation between the complainant and the appellant. The appellant inflicted only one injury and it cannot be said that he had acted in a cruel manner. In my opinion Shri Gupta is right in his submission that if the injury caused by the appellant had resulted in the death of the complainant the appellant could only have been convicted of the offence of culpable homicide punishable under Section 304 Part I, I.P.C. Since the said injury did not result in the death of complainant, the appellant ought to have been convicted of the offence of attempt to commit culpable homicide punishable under the latter part of Section 308 I.P.C. 8. Section 326 I.P.C. postulates voluntarity causing of grievous hurt by the accused. In view of Section 322 I.P.C. a person can be said voluntarily to cause grievous hurt if the hurt which he intends to cause or knows himself to be likely to cause is grievous hurt and if the hurt which he causes is grievous hurt. The explanation to section 322 I.P.C. lays down that a person is not said voluntarily to cause grievous hurt except when he both causes grievous hurt and intends or knows himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt. The appellant could be convicted under Section 326 I.P.C. only if it could be held that he intended to cause grievous hurt or know, himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt. In the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be inferred that the appellant intended to cause grievous hurt or knew, himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt when he inflicted the knife injury on the complainant. The conviction of the appellant under Section 326 I.P.C. cannot, therefore, be sustained and the conviction of the appellant is altered from one under Section 326 I.P.C. to that under the latter part of Section 308 I.P.C. 9. As regards the sentence, Shri Gupta has submitted that according to the memo of arrest, Ex. P. 14, as well as the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the age of the appellant was 24 years. As regards the sentence, Shri Gupta has submitted that according to the memo of arrest, Ex. P. 14, as well as the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the age of the appellant was 24 years. Shri Gupta has further submitted that the appellant was arrested on May 28, 1979 and he was released on Bail on January 4, 1980 and thereafter he was arrested on January 29, 1981 and since than he has been under going the sentence taking into consideration the age of the appellant and the further fact that he has remained in custody for nearly 13 months during the course of investigation and trial and after the pronouncement of the judgement, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone and the fine is increased from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1000/- and out of the aforesaid amount a sum of Rs. 500/- be paid as compensation to the complainant Narendra Kumar, P.W. 1. 10. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant, Pappu alias Parmanand, under Section 326 I.P.C. is set aside and he is convicted under Section 308 I.P.C. He is sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- out of which a sum of Rs. 500/- will be paid as compensation to Narendra Kumar, P. W. 1. In the event of non-payment of fine, the appellant will undergo rigorous IMPRISONMENT for a further period of three months. The conviction of the appellant under section 4/25 of the Arms Act is maintained, but no separate sentence is awarded.Appeal dismissed. *******