Judgment This is a revision by the accused, who stands convicted under Sec.326, I.P.C., and sentenced to undergo two years imprisonment and fine of Rs.100. 2. The facts are very simple. The accused was found Staring at the daughter of P.W.1. Upon P.W.1 questioning the accused on his behaviour the accused got irritated and beat P.W.1 on his left shoulder with an iron pipe M.O.1. Upon the complaint of P.W.1, the investigating officer filed a report under Sec.173, Criminal Procedure Code, to the effect that an offence under Sec.326, Indian Penal Code appeared to have been committed by the accused. Thereafter, charge was framed, accordingly three eye witnesses were examined, including the injured, and in addition medical evidence was also adduced. Upon that evidence, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that an offence under Sec.326, I.P.C., was committed and the same was confirmed by the appellate court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the above facts. What he contends is that there is no judicial finding that the hurt is a grievous one caused by a dangerous weapon. 4. For a hurt to be considered as a grievous one it should come under any one of the categories referred to in Sec.320, I.P.C. The doctor may have an opinion that the hurt is a grievous one clinically. But from the opinion of the doctor the court has to come to its own conclusion whether the hurt is a grievous one within the meaning of Sec320, Indian Penal Code. There is no such finding in this case Of course it is alleged that because of the attack by the accused on P.W.1 with M.O.1, he (P.W.1) sustained a fracture on his clavicle. But there is no clear proof, to that effect not even in the evidence of the doctor. 5. For holding that a Weapon to be a dangerous one within the meaning of Sec.324 or 326, I.P.C., either on a perusal of the weapon or on perusing the description of the weapon used, the court shall record a finding to that effect or that there should be an opinion of the doctor that the injury found on the injured could have been caused only by a dangerous Weapon. In this case though the Weapon used M.O.1, was produced, the court has not taken any pain to describe it and give a finding that it is a dangerous Weapon. Therefore the offence committed by the accused could be only under Sec.323 Indian Penal Code. 6. In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part and the conviction and sentence under Sec.326, Indian Penal Code, are set aside and instead the petitioner is convicted under Sec.323, I.P.C., and sentenced to pay a total fine of Rs.350 inclusive of the fine already paid. The balance of fine amount of Rs.250 shall be paid within one month from the date of communication of this order by the trial court, failing which, the petitioner shall undergo imprisonment for one month. B.S. ----- Petitioner allowed in part.