Judgment This revision petition isagainst conviction and sentence. The background of the case is as follows: 2. The victims and the accused are neighbours having adjacent lands. There was a dispute regarding diversion of water from the channel by P.W.2. A wordy quarrel ensued which immediately was followed by some injuries inflicted by the accused on the bodies of P.Ws.1 and 2. He was charged for an offence under Section 324, I.P.C., for causing injury on the body of P.W.1 and for an offence under Section 326, I.P.C., for causing injury on the body of P.W.2. The trial Court convicted the accused for offences he was prosecuted and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment and to pay fine. The same was confirmed by the appellate Court. 3. The only point raised inthis revision petition is that the injuries inflicted on the body of P.W.2are grievous in nature and that the conviction under Section 326 is wrong. The Courts below have come to the conclusion that the injuries were grievous for the reason that the doctor had termed them as such. It was also contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that since the doctor has deposed and certified that the injuries were grievous they should be considered as such and that the accused was to be dealt with accordingly. This argument is totally erroneous. The doctor can say whether the injury is simple or grievous only from the clinical point of view, but whether the same is simple or grievous from the legal point of view is for the Court to decide. Indian Penal Code has defined ‘hurt’ and ‘grievous hurt’ respectively under Sections 319 and 320 and in the latter Section the Code has listed the hurts which could be considered as grievous and it has made clear that only such hurts would be grievous and not the others. Therefore, when the enumeration is limitative the Court has necessarily to give a finding whether a hurt is grievous and if so under which of the categories listed in the Code. If for instance, the certificate or the deposition of the doctor shows that there is a fracture of bone, nothing more would be necessary for the Court to come to the conclusion that it is a grievous hurt. If for instance, the certificate or the deposition of the doctor shows that there is a fracture of bone, nothing more would be necessary for the Court to come to the conclusion that it is a grievous hurt. But, on the other hand when the doctor opines that clinically it is a grievous injury and that the injury does not come directly as per its description under any of the categories listed in the Code, it is the duty of the prosecution to show how it is a grievous hurt in the legal sense and then it is the duty of the Court while giving the finding what it amounts to interms of the hurts listed under Section 320, I.P.C. The Courts below have not taken any such course. There is nothing here on record to show that injuries Nos.1, 2, 3 and 6 which have been termed as grievous by the doctor are really grievous injuries as per the Code. 4. In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part with the following modifications in conviction and sentence. The conviction under Section 326 for the injury on the body of P.W.2 is modified into one under Section 324. The conviction under Section 324, for an offence of causing injury on the body of P.W.1 is confirmed. The sentence imposed by the Courts below are set aside and the petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for each of the two offences within two months from the date of receipt of the order by the Courts below; in default he will undergo two months rigorous imprisonment for each of the offences.