JUDGMENT 1. - On the direction of the Court the learned Public Prosecutor to notice and the appeal itself has been heard. 2. The appellant has been convicted under Section 307 I. P. C., and has been sentenced to two and a half years regorous imprionment and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-. The appellant has further been convicted for the offence under Section 452, I.P.C., and has been sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/. In default of payment of fine he has been awarded one months further rigorous imprisonment on both the counts. The substantive sentences under both the counts were also ordered to run concurrently. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Churu. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the Judgment, I agree with the finding of the learned Sessions Judge, Churu that the appellant inflicted a knife blow on the victim Sitaram. This fact is proved by the statement of the victim and is further corroborated by the medical evidence. The defence set up by the accused does not appear to be even probable in the circumstances of the case. So far the hurt on the person of Sitaram is concerned, the accused has rightly been held responsible. The principal question which arises for consideration is as to whether the offence under Section 307, I.P.C. is at all made out. The occurrence appears to have taken place on a trifling matter. Fifty paise were due from the appellant to the victim and when the said money was demanded by the victim, that enraged the appellant and the appellant inflicted knife blow on the victim. The circumstances do not in any way indicate that there was any intertion on the part of the appellant to cause death of the victim Sitaram. The doctor has opined that the injury on the person of the victim was found to be simple after X-Ray examination. In the light of the medical evidence the case does not travel beyond Section 324, I.P.C. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is aged about 80. years and for the offence under Section 324, I.P.C. the appellant maybe granted the benefit of the probation. In the light of the medical evidence the case does not travel beyond Section 324, I.P.C. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is aged about 80. years and for the offence under Section 324, I.P.C. the appellant maybe granted the benefit of the probation. Looking to the dimensions of the injury, I do not feel persuaded to extend the benefit of probation to the appellant. Having regard to his age and having regard to the nature of the injury, as opined by the medical evidence, lesser sentence would meet the ends of Justice on both the count. 6. The appeal is, therefore, partly allowed. The convictions of the appellant under Section 307, I.P.C. is set aside. His conviction under Section 452, I.P.C, maintained. However, the appellant is convicted for the offence under Sec, 324, I.P.C., and is sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment. The sentence for the offence under Section 452, I.P.C. is also reduced to three months rigorous imprisonment, but the sentences of fine on both the counts are set aside. The substantive sentences on both the counts shall run concurrently.Appeal partly allowed. *******