JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15th Jan. 1982, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Baran (for short, "the ASJ"), by which, the appellant has been found guilty of offences under sections 308 & 324, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to 3 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 4 months' rigorous imprisonment; and no separate sentence for the offence under section 324, IPC, was passed. 2. The alleged incident had taken place on 7th July, 1980, at about 10' clock in the noon, at Village - Pipalkhedi. One Babulal lodged a report at the police station, alleging that he and his brother Ranglal had gone to their field to sow 'Jawar'; while they were ploughing the filed, they field the 'Khud' near the boundary of Kana accused. Kana and Kalyan started removing the same. At this, Babulal tried to stop them; but, Kana and Kalyan abused him. Then Gopal ran to beat Ranglal; and Babulal was beaten up by Gopal. Suddenly, Heeralal came from the village and gave knife-blows to Ranglal. On this report, a case under sections 307/148 & 149, Indian Penal Code was registered. 3. After completing usual investigation, the police submitted a challan against 5 accused persons under sections 147, 307, 324, 325 & 325/149, IPC. 4. The trial court framed charges against Gopal under section 147, 307, 325/149, 324 & 325, IPC, and as against the other accused persons under sections 147, 307, 325/149 & 324, IPC. After completing the trial, the trial court accepted the theory of self-defence of the accused persons except or. behalf of Heeralal; and all the four accused persons were acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. Heeralal was, however, not found guilty under sections 307, 147 & 325/149, Indian Penal Code and was acquitted of these charges; but, he was found guilty of offences under sections 308 & 324, Indian Penal Code and sentenced as mentioned above. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the trial court has come to the finding that the complainant-party had entered into the field of the accused persons; and four accused persons were acquitted on the ground of their self-defence. The same is the case of the present appellant. The field belonged to Heeramal. The other accused persons, namely. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the trial court has come to the finding that the complainant-party had entered into the field of the accused persons; and four accused persons were acquitted on the ground of their self-defence. The same is the case of the present appellant. The field belonged to Heeramal. The other accused persons, namely. Dwarka and Kalia are the sons of Heeralal, Kana is the brother of Heeralal, while Gopal is the son of Kana. So, all the accused persons belong to one family and the field was of the accused persons and the complainant-party had entered into it. Therefore, the trial court has rightly believed the theory of self-defence of Heeralal. 6. The entire record was perused. Heeralal was not present when the dispute had taken place. The other four accused persons were ploughing their field, and the dispute arose between them on one side and the complainant-party on the other, and both the parties inflicted injuries to each other. It is in the evidence that the accused persons had also injuries on their bodies. Heeralal who had arrived there from the village after the starting of the dispute, seeing that his son and brother were being beaten up by the members of the complainant-party, inflicted two knife-blows to Ranglal. No doubt, Heeralal also had injuries on his body, but those injuries cannot be said to have been received prior to his infliction of knife- blows to Ranglal. So, the theory of self-defence was not applicable to Heeralal; and the trial court has correctly not accepted this theory. I, therefore, do not agree with the contention of the appellant that he had also inflicted the injuries in his self-defence. 7. The question to be seen is whether an offence under section 307, IPC, has been established again, t accused Heeralal or not. S. 308, Indian Penal Code says that whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that act, caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. So, there is some distinction between sections 307 & 308, IPC; S. 307 is attempt to murder and S. 308 is attempt to commit culpable homicide. So, keeping the ingredients of S. 308 the evidence was scrutinised and the statements of the doctors were also perused. So, there is some distinction between sections 307 & 308, IPC; S. 307 is attempt to murder and S. 308 is attempt to commit culpable homicide. So, keeping the ingredients of S. 308 the evidence was scrutinised and the statements of the doctors were also perused. It is not in the evidence that the injuries caused by Heeralal to Ranglal were dangerous to life, or that they were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. When those injuries were examined by the doctor, who issued the injury-report (Ex. P. 5), mentioned therein that injury No. 4 was grievous and all the other injuries were simple in nature. Later on, he corrected it and mentioned that injury No. 4 was also a grievous injury. The statement of Indu Dutt PW 3 was perused. He has proved the injury-report (Ex. P.5). He admitted that previously he had mentioned injury No. 4 to be a simple one ; but, when he received the X-ray report. he changed his opinion and mentioned in the report (Ex. P.5) that injury No. 4 was a grievous injury. Regarding injury No. 1, he has opined that this injury was treated to be a grievous one, because, Ranglal remained in the hospital for 20 days. Now, looking to the statement of Dr. Indu Dutt PW 3, the position is that according to the doctor's estimation, injuries Nos. 1 & 4 were simple injuries. Injury No I he has treated to be grievous, because, Ranglal remained in the hospital for 20 days. So, injury No. 1 is treated to be a grievous one in view of Clause Eighty of S. 320, IPC. which says that 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, would be called as a grievous injury. In this light, injury No. 1 was perused. It is to be seen, whether this injury is covered under clause 'eighty" of S. 320, IPC. The only ground for treating this injury was that Ranglal remained in the hospital for 20 days; but, there is no proof on the record that Ranglal was admitted to hospital and that there he remained admitted for 20 days. Apart from this fact, remaining in hospital for 20 days. The only ground for treating this injury was that Ranglal remained in the hospital for 20 days; but, there is no proof on the record that Ranglal was admitted to hospital and that there he remained admitted for 20 days. Apart from this fact, remaining in hospital for 20 days. does not suffice to prove an injury to be a grievous one. The prosecution has to prove that during his admission to hospital for 20 days he was severely suffering from bodily pain, on account of that injury and he was unable to follow his ordinary pursuits. Mere admission to hospital for 20 days would not concert a simple injury into a grievous one. A person can remain admitted to a hospital even for a month, but, that would not amount a simple injury to a grievous one. The prosecution has to prove that he remained admitted to hospital under severe bodily pain and he was not able to follow his ordinary pursuits ; and only in that circumstance, a simple injury can be converted/treated to be a grievous one if we look into the record, there is no proof to this effect. It was the duty of the prosecution to have produced the record of the hospital where Ranglal was admitted. It was also the duty of the prosecution to prove that the injury for which Ranglal remained in the hospital for 20 days, was so serious and he was suffering from such a bodily pain that he could not follow his ordinary pursuits. As there is no such proof to this effect, mere statement of the doctor that he thought as Ranglal was admitted to hospital for 20 days. and so, his injury No. 1 was treated to be a grievous one, is not acceptable. This was merely a thinking of the doctor. Mere thinking of the doctor does not mean that Ranglal was admitted to hospital for 20 days, unless it is proved from the record of the hospital. So, I do not agree with the statement of the doctor Indu Dutt PW 3 that injuries Nos. 1 & 4 on the person of Ranglal were grievous ones. They, in my view, were simple in nature. 8. As regards injury No. 4, the doctor has opined it to be a grievous injury on account of the X-ray report and secondly because, there was disfiguration. 1 & 4 on the person of Ranglal were grievous ones. They, in my view, were simple in nature. 8. As regards injury No. 4, the doctor has opined it to be a grievous injury on account of the X-ray report and secondly because, there was disfiguration. No doubt in clause "sixthly" of S. 320. IPC, permanent disfiguration of head or face, also amounts to a grievous injury. In this case, injury No. 4 was on the left ' Pinna". The doctor has stated that there was disfiguration, and so, he treated this injury to be a grievous one. He has not stated what disfiguration was there ; whether his face was disfigured. If the face of Ranglal was disfigured on account of injury No. 4, then, certainly, it was a grievous injury ; otherwise, it was also not a grievous injury. I do not agree with the statement of the doctor the injury No. 4 was also a grievous injury, in the absence of any such proof on the record. 9. After going through the entire evidence and the statement of the doctor, I find that a case under section 308, IPC, is not made out; it is a case of simple injury by some sharp weapon; a case that is made out against the appellant in this case is under section 324, IPC; and so, I hold accordingly. 10. It was then argued that this incident had taken place in the year 1980; at that time, appellant Heeralal was aged 45 years; now 9 years have elapsed; during this period, he has been on bail; after passing of the judgment by the trial court, he was taken into custody; he remained in jail for about 20 days; and so, the argument was that in a case under section 324, IPC, and especially, when the complainant party had come to the field of the accused persons, and the other accused persons have been acquitted by the trial court on their plea of self-defence, and also in view of the fact that the sons and brother of the appellant, Heeralal were being beaten up by the complainant-party, and so, out of sudden provocation, he inflicted knife-blows to Ranglal, some lenient view should be taken. 11. 11. Considered the arguments; and I find that after a lapse of 9 years and particularly in the circumstances in which the incident had taken place, it would not be justifiable to send the appellant, Heeralal back to jail to undergo some substantive sentence. A case under section 324, Indian Penal Code has been found to have been established against him. The circumstances in which Heeralal had inflicted the knife blows to Ranglal, were also very peculiar. So, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, if the sentence of imprisonment, already undergone by the appellant, is awarded to him. That would meet the ends of justice. However, some fine may also be imposed upon the appellant. 12. In the result, the appeal is partly accepted. The appellant is not found guilty under section 308, IPC, and he is acquitted of this offence. Instead, he is found guilty of offence u1s. 324. Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment which he has already undergone, along with a fine of Rs. 200/-; in defect of payment of fine, he shall undergo 1 month's simple imprisonment. Two months' time is granted to deposit the fine.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******