JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Merta dated February 3, 1979 by which he has convicted the accused-appellant under Section 326, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 11/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus. 2. In the morning of November 10, 1977, a quarrel took place in between the accused-appellant and co-accused Khetaram on the one hand and the injured Malaram, in xegar Mohalla. Kuchamrn City. The accused-appellant inflicted a blow with his rapit on the obdomen of the injured Malaram PW. 1. On his statement Ex. P. 1 FIR Ex. P. 20 was registered under sections 326 and 307, IPC against the accused-persons. After investigation, challan was filed against both of them. Charges under Section 307 read with Section 34, IPC and in the alternative Section 326 read with Section 34 and in the alternative Sections 307 and 326 read with Sec., 09, IPC were framed against the co-accused Khetaram and under Section 307, IPC and in th3 alternative Sec 326, IPC was framed against the accused appellant Suresh. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses and produced and proved 21 documents. Both the accused denied the prosecution story and evidence. They did not produce any evidence in their defence. After hearing the parties, the co-accused Khetaram was acquitted and the accused-appellant was convicted under Section 326, IPC by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta as said above. It is contended by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant that all the prosecution witnesses including the father Sujaram PW. 2 of the injured, had turned hostile, no reason has been given in the injury report Ex P. 2 while describing the stab wound as grievous injury, bed-head ticket has not been filed and proved & no reliance can be placed on the testimony of Dr. S.L. Sahai, PW. 12 when he says that on the basis of his memory, stab wound was grievous in nature. In the alternative he contended that the case under Section 324, IPC is only proved against the accused appellant and he should be released on the sentence already undergone by him. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor tried her best to support the conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant. 4. In the alternative he contended that the case under Section 324, IPC is only proved against the accused appellant and he should be released on the sentence already undergone by him. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor tried her best to support the conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant. 4. The injured Malaram PW 1 has categorically stated on oath that the accused-appellant inflicted a blow with his Tapi on his abdomen and as a result thereof, he received a stab wound. This fact was duly disclosed by him in his statement Ex- P. 1, which was immediately recorded and on its basis, the FIR Ex. P. 20 was registered. There appears to be no good reason to disbelieve the testimony of Malaram PW 1 when he says that the accused appellant was the author of his stab wound. His statement also finds corroboration from the injury report Ex P 2. 5. Now the question for consideration is whether the case under Section 326 IPC is proved against the accused-appellant. Dr. S.L. Sahani, PW. 12, examined Malaram the same day and prepared the injury report Ex. P. 2. In Column No 4, he has simply mentioned "'grievous" No reason has been stated in support of this conclusion. Dr-Sahani PW. 12 admits in his cross-examination that the width of the injury was not measurable and as such it was not mentioned by him in the injury report Ex. P. 2. He further disclosed that on conducting the operation, he found liver peritoneum and intestines damaged by this injury Phis he says on the basis of his memory as this fact is not mentioned in the report Ex. P. 2. Admittedly, bed-head ticket has not been produced and proved by the prosecution. If the condition of the injured Malaram would have been serious, his dying declaration would have been recorded, in view of this state of evidence, the injury received by Malaram cannot be held t be grievous in nature. As such offence under Section 324. IPC is only proved against the accused-appellant. 6. The accused-appellant was arrested on November 11, 1977 and he was released on bail in pursuance of the order of this Court on April 3, 1978 As such he bad been in custody for over 41/2 months. As such offence under Section 324. IPC is only proved against the accused-appellant. 6. The accused-appellant was arrested on November 11, 1977 and he was released on bail in pursuance of the order of this Court on April 3, 1978 As such he bad been in custody for over 41/2 months. It also appears from the statement of Sujaram PW 3, father of the injured Malaram PW.I, and other prosecution witnesses that the parties have effected compromise. Under these facts and circumstances of the case, the accused-appellant deserves to be released on the sentence already undergone by him. 7. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the accused-appellant is acquitted under Sec 326, IPC , he is convicted under Sec 324, IPC and sentenced to the period already undergone. He need not surrender to his bail-bonds.Appeal partly allowed. *******