RAM PAL SINGH, J. ( 1 ) APPELLANT, aggrieved by his conviction under section 326 I. P. C. , in Sessions Trial No 5/82, in the Court of Addi. Sessions Judge, Satna, Judgment dated 29-11-83, has preferred this appeal. The appellant was converted under section 326 I. P. C. and sentenced to 5 years R. I. ( 2 ) IN village Rampur Baghelan of District Satna there were 2 fractions of Muslims, one the complainant party and the other accused party including the appellant On 20. 7. 81 in the evening at 5-30, the complainant party consisting of Abdul Shamim, Abdul Mom and Abdul Rauf are said to have been proceeding towards their home from the market. When they reached near the Bour mill of Sidhsharan, they saw that an unlawful assembly of about 15 accused persons. including the appellant had assembled there with fire arms and, dangerous weapons. Someone from the unlawful assembly exhorted to kill the above, named 3 complainants. From the assembly of 15 accused persons, the appellant is alleged to have been armed with a country-made pistol and he fired at Abdul Rauf, Abdul Raut was injured by the pellets in chest and in the neck. He was rushed to police station Rampur Baghelan where the report was lodged. He was examined by Dr. A. K. Namdeo (P. W. 15) who found small pellet injuries upon the shoulder and the neck. The appellant Bouva was arrested and from whom a country-made pistol is alleged to have been recovered. The recovered country made pistol and the pellets from the body of the injured were sent for chemical examination. All the accused were prosecuted. The trial Judge after recording the evidence of the prosecution and the defence, acquitted 14 accused from the charges of sections 147, 148 and 307/149 I. P. C. , but convicted only the appellant under section 326 I. P. C. and sentenced him to 5 years R. I. It is against this judgment of conviction that the appellant has preferred this appeal before this court. ( 3 ) SHRI S. C. Dutt, the learned counsel for the appellant, has rightly refrained from addressing this court so far as the merits of the conviction are concerned. ( 3 ) SHRI S. C. Dutt, the learned counsel for the appellant, has rightly refrained from addressing this court so far as the merits of the conviction are concerned. His only contention is that the conviction of the appellant under section 326 I. P. C. is bad in law and actually the appellant can be said to have committed an offence punishable under section 324 I. P. C. Shri B. P. Singh, learned counsel for the State, has controverted the arguments of Shri Dutt and contended that the conviction of the appellant is correct in law because the, injured person has remained in the hospital for more than 20 days and. the case of the prosecution squarely falls in clause eighthly of section 320, I. P. C. Considered the rival or contentions. ( 4 ) THE ingredients of section 326 I. P. C. are given in section 320 I. P. C. Offence of grievous hurt is made out only when the prosecution proves that the accused was the author of the injuries, and be injuries resulted in emasculation, permanent privation of the sight of either eye, permanent privation of the hearing of either ear, privation of any member of joint, destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint, permanent disfigurations of the head or face, fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth and any hurt which endangers 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 in this case the provisions of section 320, 1 to 7th are absent on perusal of the statement of Dr. Namdeo (P. W. 15) the appellant has been convicted only because the injured Abdul Rauf (P. W. 3) has stated in his statement that he has remained in hospital for more than 20 days and was unable to follow his daily pursuits. Dr. Namdeo (P. W. 15), when he entered the witness box, was not questioned with regard to this fact by the prosecution. It has to be noted that to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubts, is the bounden duty of the prosecution. It is not for the defence to make out his case for a particular offence. Dr. Namdeo (P. W. 15), when he entered the witness box, was not questioned with regard to this fact by the prosecution. It has to be noted that to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubts, is the bounden duty of the prosecution. It is not for the defence to make out his case for a particular offence. It is only when he takes a defence plea, the only he is required to bring his case within the preview of preponderance of probability. In order to justify the conviction under section 320 I. P. C. the injuries caused must justify the requirements of clause eighthly of section 320. Except the, bald statement of Abdul Rauf, there appears to be a complete absence of medical evidence on the fact whether the burn caused to the injured person has caused the sufferer to be during the space of 20 days in severe bodily pain or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits, Dr. Namdeo (P. W. 15) was not sure whether the injuries caused to Abdul Rauf were simple in nature or were grievous in nature. Para 3 of the deposition of Dr. Namdeo clearly indicates that he was not in a position to opine whether the injuries were grievous in nature or simple in nature. ( 5 ) CONSEQUENTLY the point taken by Shri Dutt learned counsel for the appellant has to be upheld and this appeal is partly allowed and the conviction under section 326 I. P. C. is set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under section 324 I. P. C. The punishment provided for an offence under section 324 I. P. C. is 3 years R. I. or fine or both. From the records Shri Dutt contends that the appellant is young in age, that the appellant was led away by religious frengy, that the appellant is not a hardened criminal and he should be given a chance to reform himself. Shri Dutt also contends that the appellant has remained in jail for a period of 1 year, hence he should not be sent to jail. Be that as it may, but as the appellant his remained in jail for about one year, I do not think it necessary to send him to jail looking to the fact that it is his first offence. Be that as it may, but as the appellant his remained in jail for about one year, I do not think it necessary to send him to jail looking to the fact that it is his first offence. Instead, in addition to the period already undergone, the appellant is directed to deposit a fine of Rs. 2000/- within a period of 2 months from today in the court. Out of this amount, Rs. 500/- shall be paid to Abdul Rauf (P. W. 3) resident of Rampur Baghelan in accordance with the provisions of section 357 Cr. P. C. .