G.K. SHARMA, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1st Feb., 80, passed by the Sessions Judge, Ajmer, convicting the accused appellant u/s. 307, IPC and sentencing him to 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 months rigorous imprisonment. The appellant has also been convicted u/s. 324, IPC and sentenced to 3 months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 25/-and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days rigorous imprison ment; and u/s. 323. IPC, two months simple imprisonment. All the substantive sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently. 2. According to the prosecution story, Parmanand used to carry business of selling utensils. Some 3-4 days prior to 30th Sept., 78, accused Khattan had come to Parmanand to purchase some Utensils, on credit. Parmanand refused to sell it on credit, which irritated Khattan, who became angry Thereafter, on the night of 30th Sept. 78, at about 9-9.15 Oclock Parmanand and Heera were going together through Kala-Bazar towards the house of Parmanand. In the way, near the shop of a goldsmith, accused Khattan met them. Seeing them, Khattan started abusing, to which, Parmanand and Heera asked him not to uttar abuses. At this, Khattan took out a knife, and all of a sudden, inflicted one knife blow on the left abdomen of Parmanand. He then gave a second blow by knife on the eyes of Ramanand. When Heera tried to rescue him, Khattan inflicted one knife-blow on his left leg and then one another blow on his lips After that, Khattan ran away from the place of occurrence. The injury in the abdomen of Parmanand, was a serious one, where from blood was coming out, and so, his bush shirt was tied around the wound. Parmanand fell down no sooner he reached his house. Hudaldas, brother of Parmanand was called from the upstairs, who was then told the entire incident. Hudaldas then took Parmanand to hospital, where the latter became unconscious. The injuries of Parmanand were examined on 30th Sept., 78, in the night, at about 11,15 Oclock, by Dr. A.N. Mathur, The doctor then informed about the case to PS - Gunj, on telephone. SI, Anandsingh came to JLN Hospital on the information of the doctor, after entering a report in the Roznamacha. The injuries of Parmanand were examined on 30th Sept., 78, in the night, at about 11,15 Oclock, by Dr. A.N. Mathur, The doctor then informed about the case to PS - Gunj, on telephone. SI, Anandsingh came to JLN Hospital on the information of the doctor, after entering a report in the Roznamacha. On the same night, at about 1-30 Oclock, Hudaldas lodged an FIR at the police station. The injuries of Heera were also examined by the doctor on 1st. Oct., 78. Khattan was arrested on 1st Oct., 78. After completing usual investigation, the police submitted a challan against the accused, who was then committed to the court of Sessions, by the Magistrate. 3. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused, Khattan, u/ss. 307, 324 & 323, IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After concluding the trial, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the charges and he sentenced him as mentioned above. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant did not argue the entire case on merits. His only argument was that from the statement of the doctor and the injury - report, no case is made out u/s. 307, IPC, and according to him, there is nothing on the record to show that the act of the accused was dangerous to life and that the act that he committed, was done with the intention or know-ledge that if by that act death was caused., we would be held guilty of murder. So, according to the learned counsel, the ingredient of S. 307, IPC is not established by the evidence on record. 5. I have perused the statement of the doctor, A. N. Mathur PW 9, and also the injury-report of Parmanand (Ex. P. 7). Dr. Mathur, in his statement, has stated that the injury in the ordinary course of nature, could cause death, if the victim remained unattended by a surgeon, in time. He has further stated that the stab-wound was 4" x 1-1/2" x peritoneal deep, on the left side of the abdomen. After narrating the dimension of the stab-wound, the doctor has given this statement that in the ordinary course of nature, this injury could cause death. If we look into the injury-report (Ex. P. 7) of Parmanand, we find that by mistake the dimension of the injury has been stated by the doctor. According to Ex. After narrating the dimension of the stab-wound, the doctor has given this statement that in the ordinary course of nature, this injury could cause death. If we look into the injury-report (Ex. P. 7) of Parmanand, we find that by mistake the dimension of the injury has been stated by the doctor. According to Ex. P 7, this injury (stab-wound) is 1.4" x l-1/2" x peritoneal deep. Either by mistake, the doctor has stated it, or by mistake, it has been typed that this wound was 4", while it was only 1.4" and not 4". So, the opinion of the doctor that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, was on account of the injury having been treated as 4". But, the position is quite different. This mistake could not be detected either by the court or by the counsel for the accused in the lower court. The doctor also could not clarify the said mistake, with the result that no question was put to the doctor about the injury as 1.4" x 1-1/2" x peritoneal deep. It is admitted that a knife was used by the accused. It was also not disputed that the stab-wound was inflicted by the knife which was produced in the court. But, the point to be seen is whether this injury was so dangerous that it could be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, and whether now looking to the dimension of the stab-wound, it can be said that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Now, as observed above, in the changed circumstances, it cannot be said that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, Therefore in my view, a case, u/s. 307, IPC, is not established. The accused had used a sharp-edged weapon, a dangerous weapon, but, without any provocation, voluntarily, he had inflicted the injuries to Parma Nand. Parmanand and Heera were going, along the way, and then, without exchange of any words, the accused took out his knife and inflicted blows to Parmanand. So, obviously, there was no provocation, nor was there any altercation, and as such, causing injury by a knife, in such circumstances, would be voluntary causing an injury, and that too by a dangerous weapon, because, knife is a dangerous weapon. So, obviously, there was no provocation, nor was there any altercation, and as such, causing injury by a knife, in such circumstances, would be voluntary causing an injury, and that too by a dangerous weapon, because, knife is a dangerous weapon. So, in my considered opinion, a case u/s 326, IPC, is made out instead of S. 307. IPC, and I hold accordingly. 6. It has been established that the accused had inflicted knife-blows to Heera also, who had received simple injuries, and so, the conviction of the accused u/ss. 324 & 323, has been rightly passed. After going through the entire evidence and the judgment of the lower court, I see no reason to interfere in the order of conviction of the accused-appellant u/ss. 324 & 323, IPC. 7. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the accus-ed has remained in jail for about 2 months. The incident had taken place in the year 1978. Now, the appellant is on bail. So, it would be unfair and unjust if the appellant is sent back to jail to undergo the sentence awarded to him by the lower court. Moreover, during these 10 years, no report against the conduct of the accused has been made. Stating all these circumstances, the learned counsel prayed that a lenient view may be taken. 8. I have considered the argument of both the learned counsel. A case u/ss 326, 324 & 323, IPC, has been made out against the appellant The present incident had taken place on 30th Sept, 78; and now 10 years have elapsed after that, It would be unjust & unfair if after a lapse of 10 years, a person is sent back to jail for an offence committed by him. No doubt, he has been found guilty but, instead of sending back to jail, if the fine imposed upon him is enhanced and the period for which he has been in jail is treated to be sufficient, that in my opinion would meet the ends of justice. 9. The appeal is, therefore, partly accepted. The appellant is found guilty of offences u/ss. 326, 324 & 323, (PC. He has been in jail for about 2 months. So, the sentence of imprisonment which he has already undergone is awarded to him for offences u/ss. 326, 324 & 323 IPC. However, for the offences u/s. 326, IPC. 9. The appeal is, therefore, partly accepted. The appellant is found guilty of offences u/ss. 326, 324 & 323, (PC. He has been in jail for about 2 months. So, the sentence of imprisonment which he has already undergone is awarded to him for offences u/ss. 326, 324 & 323 IPC. However, for the offences u/s. 326, IPC. he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 503/- in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo 2 months rigorous imprisonment, and for offence u/s 324 IPC, he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default he shall further undergo 1 months rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences awarded to the appellant by this Court in default of payment of fine, shall however run concu-rrently. Two months time, is granted to the accused-appellant to deposit the fine.