JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated November 20, 1981, of learned Addl. Sessions Judge No 1, Baran, whereby he found the accused guilty under sections 307 and 326 I.P.C. He sentenced him to suffer four years rigorours imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer two months imprisonment. He did not award any separate sentence under section 326 I. P. C. Convicted accused has challenged the conviction and sentence awarded to him by filing an appeal in this Court. 2. I am not required to deal in detail the evidence examined on behalf of the prosecution and the circumstances brought-forth on record as the learned counsel for the appellant has rightly conceded that the occurrence did take place in the manner and at the time alleged by the prosecution. There is sufficient evidence on record to hold that the accused inflicted injuries suffered by Gurdeep Singh on November 8, 1980. However, I have looked into record and am satisfied that there is reliable evidence to the effect that the accused inflicted injuries on the person of Gurdeep Singh as a result of which he sustained grievous hurt and six simple injuries. The only point pressed before me is that the learned Addl. Session, judge has erred in convicting the accused under section 307 I. P. C. He could at the most be convicted under section 326 I.P.C. In support of the above contention the learned counsel has read over to me the statement of Dr. M.M. Mishra who in his cross-examination admitted that injuries Nos. 2 to 7 could be sustained by the victim by two falls. He further admitted that injuries Nos. 1 and 8 were not on any vital part or bone of the body and no vital part of the body was damaged. There is no reliable evidence of motive on record. If a man does an act with such intention or knowledge and in such circumstances that if the death had been caused, offence would have been amounted to murder and if the act is of such a nature as would have caused death in the usual course of events, but for somehow beyond his control it prevented that injury, his act would be punishable as an attempt to murder. But where the injuries are caused and no vital organ of the body is cut, the intention has to be gathered from the nature of the injuries. In such a case accused must be presumed to intend only the natural consequences of the act, his liability should be limited to the act he actually did and should not be extended so as to embrace the consequences of another act which he might have done but did not do. The evidence on record indicates that the incident occurred in broad-day light well frequented road, it is not easy to assume that in such circumstances the appellant could have intended to do a crime for which law has provided capital punishment. In this state of affairs it cannot be said that the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the offence committed by the appellant falls squarely under section 307 I.P.C. and in my opinion only under Section 326 I.P.C. 3. The net result of the above discussion is that the appeal is partly allowed and the conviction of the accused under section 307 I.P.C. is set aside. He is convicted under section 326 I. P. C. and sentenced to suffer sixteen months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine he shall further undergo seven days imprisonment. It is, however, made clear that the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of Section 428 Cr. P. C. The period of detention undergone by him during investigation, inquiry or trial shall be set off against the term of imprisonment awarded by this Court. *******