JUDGMENT David Annousstmy, J. (1) This is a revision petition against conviction and sentence. The case of the complainant, P.W. 1, in this case is that on 25.10.1982, at about 2:30 p.m. the accused obstructed him and caused injuries. There upon a final report was filed by the investigating officer to the effect that offences under Ss. 341, 323 and 326, I.P.C., appeared to have been committed by the accused. Charges were framed accordingly by the trial court. The trial court found Al guilty to the charge under S. 324 , I.P.C., convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months. He was acquitted to the charge under S. 341, I.P.C., A2, who was charged only for the offence under S. 326 I.P.C., was found guilty under that section and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500, in default to undergo three months of rigorous imprisonment. On appeal the Sessions Judge of Nagapattinam by judgment, dated 12.12.1983, confirmed the conviction and sentence in so far as the first accused is concerned, but in so far as the second accused is concerned, he was found guilty only of an offence under S. 324 I.P.C., convicted accordingly under S. 324, I.P.C., instead of under S. 326, I.P.C., and the sentence of imprisonment was reduced from six months to four months while the sentence of fine was confirmed. (2) The revision petitioners are found absent. No representation was made on their behalf. The records and the grounds of revision were perused.The only defect found in the judgments of the courts below is that there is an finding that the weapons used were dangerous ones. In fact, for bringing an offence under S. 324, I.P.C., which is an aggravated form of offence under S. 323 I.P.C., there should be a clear finding that the accused used dangerous weapons as defined in S. 324 I.P.C. Therefore, either the weapons should be produced before this Court to come to such a conclusion or the weapons should be clearly described by the eye -witnesses, or the, medical expert should depose to the effect that the injuries found on the victim are such as could have been inflicted only with the help of weapons as contemplated under S. 324, I.P.C. There is no such evidence in this case. (3) Learned Counsel appearing for the Public Prosecutor would contend that the witnesses have said that the accused used aruval which is an instrument for cutting and that therefore the offence should be one under S. 324, I.P.C. As per S. 324, the hurt should be caused by means of any instrument of shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death. It is clear from the above that the word 'cutting' is ejusdem generis with the words 'stabbing ', 'shooting'. Therefore, all instruments used for cutting would not be dangerous ones. The instruments should be such as is likely to cause death and the same should be used as a weapon of offence. As far as aruval is concerned there are various sorts and unless the weapon actually used is produced or properly described, no finding could be given that it is dangerous within the meaning of S. 324, I.P.C., There is also no possibility to infer the dangerous nature of the weapon from the injuries caused on account of the lack of medical evidence in that respect. Therefore, both the accused will be guilty under S. 323, I.P.C., and they are accordingly found guilty under S. 323, I.P.C. (4) In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part; accused 1 and 2 are found guilty of the offence under S. 323, I.P.C., convicted thereunder and sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone and each to pay a fine of Rs. 500 inclusive of the fine amount already paid, if any with in a period of one month from the date of intimation by the trial court failing which they shall each undergo two months of simple imprisonment.