Judgment R. N. Thakur, J. 1. The revision application in respect of petitioner No.1 was dismissed at the time of admission itself vide order dated 8-5-81. The revision application of this petitioner was admitted mainly on following two Points : (a) whether injury No.1 on Rama Shankar Sah was found to be grievous, (b)Secondly, if the injury is simple which offence he has committed. 2. After going through the entire evidence and the judgments of both the courts below, I find that there is consistent evidence that this petitioner rama Shankar Sah assaulted the Informant on the head with Farsa. Nothing has been shown to me to disbelieve this portion of the prosecution evidence. There is also concurrent findings on this point of both the courts below. Therefore, it is well proved that this petitionor assaulted the Informant with Farsa on his bead. 3. Now question arises as to what offence he has committed. P. W.7 is the doctor, who had examined P. W.6 on 15-11- 76 and found following injuries on his person :- 1. Incised wound 3 1/4"x "x whole scalp deep reaching up to the superficial of the bone, on the right side of the scalp, when flap had been raised. (ii) Abrasion " X " X1/6" on his outer aspect of forehead, (iii) Abrasion 1/4"x " on the dorsom of the right hand, (iv) Swelling with bruise 5 X 2" X skin deep on left arm above elbow, (v) Lacerated wound i"xl" on the left thumb (vi) Swelling with pink is bruise 7 " X1" X skin deep on the front of left thigh. (vii) Swelling 4"x I" skin deep on the lower part of left thigh, (viii) Swelling 3" x 1" X skin deep on the right side of back, (ix) Swelling 4"x X skin deep on his right arm in outer aspect. The injury Nos.1, 2 and 3 were caused by some sharp cutting weapon, such as Farsa and Garasa, and the rest were caused by Lathi. P. W.7 has stated that injury No.1 was found to be grievous, but I think that this opinion of the doctor is not consistent with the definition of grievous wound as defined under section 320 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. P. W.7 has stated that injury No.1 was found to be grievous, but I think that this opinion of the doctor is not consistent with the definition of grievous wound as defined under section 320 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that p. W.6 had remained in Hospital for about 20 days and, therefore, it should come within clause VIII of Sec.32c of the Indian Penal Code. P. W.6 is the informant, who has stated in para-5 that "aspatal me ham 20-25 din bharti nahi the". Clause-VIII of Sec.320 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows :- -"any hurt which endagers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits. Therefore, if the Infornmant remained in hospital for twenty days this in itself will not come within the purview of clause VIII of Sec.320 of the indian Penal Code. According to the requirement of clause VIII of Sec.320 of the Indian Penal Code the sufferer has to be, during the space of twenty days, in severe bodily pain, or unable to following his ordinary pursuits. No evidence has been led that he (P. W.6) remained in hospital for 20 days in severe bodily pain, or was unable to follow his ordinary pursuits. The doctor (P. W.7) has saidthat it is not mentioned in his report that the injured had been hospitalised. No paper has been produced in support of the statement of P. W.6 that he was actually confined to bed for 20 days in the hospital. Therefore, any injury found on the informant cannot be said to be grievous. 4 In that view of the matter, the petitioner should not have been convicted under Sec.326 of the Indian Penal Code. He will coma wichin the purview of section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Therefore, 1 find that the petitioner is guilty for an offence under section 324 of the Indian penal Code. 6. Coming to the question of sentence, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, after perusing the record, has calculated that the petitioner has remained in jail for about 25 days. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place in the year, 1976 and since then he has been facing the process of trial appeal and revision. 7. 6. Coming to the question of sentence, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, after perusing the record, has calculated that the petitioner has remained in jail for about 25 days. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place in the year, 1976 and since then he has been facing the process of trial appeal and revision. 7. Taking into consideration all these facts and circumstances in which the occurrence took place, I think the period already undergone will meet the ends of justice. 8. With this modification in the order of conviction and sentence, the revision application is dismissed. Revision partly allowed.