JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner Ram Swaroop along with one Radhey Shyam had faced trial for the offence under sections 447, 324 and 325/34 Indian Penal Code in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Jahazpur. The complainant had quarrels with the petitioner and Radhey Shyam in connection with agricultural land. It was alleged that on September 1, 1972 these two persons trespassed the field in dispute and complainant Dhan Raj while restraining them from cutting the grass was given a beating with lathi by the petitioner and axe by Radhey Shyam, Dhan Raj lodged a complainant with the Police and the accused petitioner Ram Swaroop and co-accused Radhey Shyam were challan in the Court of the learned Magistrate, Jahazpur. The learned Magistrate on trial held Radhey Shyam guilty for the offence under section 324 Indian Penal Code-and sentenced him to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo one months rigorous imprisonment. Ram Swaroop petitioner was held guilty for the offence under section 325 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to nine months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. 2. Being aggrieved by their conviction and sentences Radhey Shyam and Ram Swaroop preferred an appeal in the Court of Sessions Judge, Bhilwara. The learned Sessions Judge by his judgment dated July 28, 1977 acquitted Radhey Shyam but maintained the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under section 325 Indian Penal Code. He however, reduced the sentence of nine months rigorous imprisonment to six months rigorous imprisonment. It is against that judgment that the petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 3. Mr. N.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner did not assail the findings of the courts below regarding the incident but vehemently urged that there is no evidence to establish that any grievous injury was sustained by the complainant and therefore, the petitioner should have been convicted only for the offence under section 323 Indian Penal Code. 4. Mr. H.N. Calla, learned Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that prosecution has proved the grievous injury of Dhan Raj by medical evidence and therefore, the findings of the two courts below do not call for any interference. 5. 4. Mr. H.N. Calla, learned Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that prosecution has proved the grievous injury of Dhan Raj by medical evidence and therefore, the findings of the two courts below do not call for any interference. 5. To appreciate the arguments advanced from both the sides and to arrive at a conclusion whether prosecution has succeeded in establishing any of the injuries sustained by Dhan Raj to be grievous . three witnesses vis. the complainant and the two Doctors are of importance. 6. Grievous injury according to the prosecution was fracture of the 6th rib of the complainant. Dhan Raj was deposed that one lathi blow on his rib was inflicted by Ram Swaroop petitioner. It has also stated that he had complained pain on the ribs for two days to the Doctor posted at Khajuri. According to him that Doctor had neither applied any medicine on the rib nor bandaged it. He however stated that he had gone to Bhilwara Hospital where one sticken piece was pasted on the rib but that portion was not plastered. 7. Referring to the statements of Dr. Amrat Lal (P.W. 1) and Dr. Ved Prakash (P.W. 4) Mr. Gupta has emphasised that the first two x-rays do not point out any fracture. It was as late as on September 5, 1972 that the third x-ray was taken, which is said to have indicated a fracture of the 6th rib. The Doctor or the Technician who had taken the x-ray have not been examined to prove the report. 8. Dr. Ved Prakash (P.W. 4) Medical Officer, Khajuri had examined the injuries or Dhan Raj on September 1, 1972 the date of the occurrence itself. According to the Doctor, all the injuries noted by him on the person of Dhan Raj were simple and caused by blunt object and might have been sustained within two hours of his examining the injured. The Doctor has categorically stated that he did not advice for any x ray nor was Dhan Raj admitted as indoor patient for the reason that neither there was any facility for doing so, nor was the condition of Dhan Raj so serious so as to admit him as an indoor patient. Whereas Dhan Raj has deposed that he had complained of pain in the ribs for two days to the Doctor at Khajuri, Dr. Whereas Dhan Raj has deposed that he had complained of pain in the ribs for two days to the Doctor at Khajuri, Dr. Ved Prakash had denied that fact and stated that after his examining Dhan Raj he never came to him complaining of any pain. In cross-examination Dr, Ved Prakash has stated that he did not suspect any fracture by clinical examination. 9. Dr. Amrat Lal (P.W. 1) Medical Jurist, M.G. Hospital, Bhilwara at the relevant time has deposed that on September 4.1972 Dhan Raj was x-rayed. According to the witness from both the x-ray plates taken on that day no fracture was detected. That, on September 5, 1972 Dan Raj was again x-rayed and on the basis of the findings of the Radiologist he had given the findings that there was doubtful fracture on the 6th rib on the lateral wall of the chess. He advised x-ray of the Dhan Raj to ascertain the fracture. Then on September 6,1972 Dhan Raj was again x-rayed. The x-ray plate is Ex.P. 2. Again, Dr. Amrat Lal on the basis of the report given by the Radiologist opined that there was fracture of the left 6th rib on the lateral wall of the chest. The report of Dr. Amrat Lal is Ex. P. 3. The Doctor further stated that the plates Ex. P. 1 and Ex. P. 2 were taken by the technician in his presence and the findings were of the Radiologist. Dr. Amrat Lals statement no where shows that he had any experience about radiology. Apart from it, the Doctor has no where stated that he had formed any opinion on seeing the plates rather has based his opinion on the findings given by the Radiologist. It was incumbent upon the prosecution to examine the Radiologist to prove the opinion on the matter. It was still more necessary in the present case in view of the fact that, as stated by Dr. Ved Prakash, the patient did not complain of any pain in the chest after examination and no fracture was detected at the time of his initial examination. The two x-ray plates taken on September 4, 1972 did not show any fracture. On September 5, 1972 also there was no definite opinion about the fracture. Ved Prakash, the patient did not complain of any pain in the chest after examination and no fracture was detected at the time of his initial examination. The two x-ray plates taken on September 4, 1972 did not show any fracture. On September 5, 1972 also there was no definite opinion about the fracture. In such circumstances when Dr, Amrat Lal (P.W. 1) has categorically stated that he has based his opinion only on the findings of the Radiologist, latter was the best person to prove his findings. 10. There being no positive evidence about the injury of Dhan Raj being grievous, I am inclined to hold that the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under section 325 Indian Penal Code is not sustainable. He is, therefore, liable to be convicted and punished only for the offence under section 323 Indian Penal Code. 11. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed and the conviction and sentence of Ramswaroop for the offence under section 325 Indian Penal Code are set aside. He is however, convicted for the offence under section 323 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. 12. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner shall intimate his client to deposit the amount of fine within a period of two months.Revision Partly allowed. *******