JUDGMENT Jagdish Chand accused has challenged the judgment dated 1-12-1988 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kangra Division at Dharamshala whereby he has been convicted under S. 333, IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years and also to fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In the event fine was not paid, he was to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months. The amount of fine if realised was to be paid to the victim, Sh. Kuldip Chand. 2. The prosecution case was that on 8-121987, Kuldip Chand Conductor was deployed on H.R.T.C. Bus No. HPK 1073 bound from Dharamshala to Beer-Guner. Sh. Amar Singh (P.W. 1) was driver on this bus. The accused boarded this bus at Baler. The bus was stopped at Tang for a few minutes where some passengers got down and some others boarded the bus. Thereafter the bus had hardly covered a distance of 200 yards or one furlong when bell was sounded to stop it. When it stopped, the accused got down from the rear door of the bus and came in from the front door and caught hold of the conductor Kuldip Chand from his arm and asked why the bus was not stopped immediately when he sounded the bell. Some altercations were exchanged between the accused and Kuldip Chand. Sh. Kuldip Chand told the accused that the bus had stopped only a furlong back and why he had sounded the bell again. At this the accused hit Kuldip Chand with a knife in his abdomen. By the time the Driver, Sh. Amar Singh came near Kuldip Chand, the accused fled away. He took Kuldip Chand to Cantonment Hospital in an ambulance and on the advice of the doctors of that hospital took him to Civil Hospital at Dharamshala. Kuldip Chand was examined by Dr. D.N. Chadha, Surgical Specialist who performed operation on him on the next day. Dr. Amarjit singh Dadhwal gave the medico-legal certificate according to which Sh. Kuldip Chand had a penetrating cut wound, on the left hypochondrium, 2cm in length and 2cm. in depth, penetrating into the abdominal cavity. 3. The accused was charged for offences under Ss.333 and 307,IPC. But after the trial, the Sessions Judge convicted him under S.333, IPC only. Dr. Amarjit singh Dadhwal gave the medico-legal certificate according to which Sh. Kuldip Chand had a penetrating cut wound, on the left hypochondrium, 2cm in length and 2cm. in depth, penetrating into the abdominal cavity. 3. The accused was charged for offences under Ss.333 and 307,IPC. But after the trial, the Sessions Judge convicted him under S.333, IPC only. The Sessions Judge held that on the evidence on record, offence under S. 307,IPC was not proved as the accused had no intention to cause death or knowledge that the stab wound caused by him would result in the death of Kuldip Chand. He has rejected the evidence of identification parade of the accused as well as the recovery of weapon of offence, that is knife, but on the basis of remaining evidence on record, he has concluded that it was the accused who caused grievous injury with knife on the person of Kuldip Chand who was a public servant and discharging his duty as such. 4. The prosecution has produced three eye witnesses. Sh. Amar Singh (P.W.1) Driver of the bus had lodged the FIR on the day of occurrence itself at about 5-15 p.m. The incident had taken place at 2-40 p.m. In his statement, he has reiterated the version given in the FIR. According to him, the bus was stopped at Tang where some passenger had got down and some had boarded the bus. Thereafter, the bus had hardly covered a distance of one furlong when it was again made to stop by sounding the whistle. After stopping the bus, he looked back and saw "Some words being exchanged between the conductor Kuldip Chand and the accused present in the Court. The accused got down from the bus from the rear door. He came to the front door and caught hold of conductor Kuldip Chand from his arm. Conductor Kuldip Chand was telling the accused that the bus was stopped only one furlong back and why he again after one furlong had sounded the bell to stop the bus again. Accused then took out the knife and gave blow on the abdomen of Kuldip Chand. After hitting and assaulting Kuldip Chand, the accused fled away." This witness further states how he took Kuldip, Chand in ambulance to Cantonment Hospital and thereafter to Civil Hospital, Dharamshala. Accused then took out the knife and gave blow on the abdomen of Kuldip Chand. After hitting and assaulting Kuldip Chand, the accused fled away." This witness further states how he took Kuldip, Chand in ambulance to Cantonment Hospital and thereafter to Civil Hospital, Dharamshala. He had participated in the identification parade held in the office of the General Assistant to Deputy Commissioner on the next day and identified the accused. In cross-examination, he has stated that he had told the Police about the name of the accused which the local people had informed him. He has denied the suggestion put to him that the Police had falsely implicated the accused as H.R.T.C. employees were on strike and were demanding the arrest of the culprit who had stabbed Kuldip Chand. He has answered in affirmative that the accused was wearing full sleeves short but had folded its sleeves at the relevant time. This witness had also noticed some disability in the left arm of the accused. 5. Sh. Kuldip Chand (P.W. 2), Conductor, has given the full account how he was stabbed by the accused which is identical to the version of Sh. Amar Singh (P.W.1). According to him,"The bus had hardly gone for about 200 yards when the accused sounded the bell to stop the bus. The accused got down from the bus and came to the front door. He entered front door and asked me why the bus was not stopped immediately when he sounded the bell. I told the accused that it was for the Driver to stop the bus. Then accused took out knife and gave me a blow with knife on my stomach. Accused fled away after hitting me with the knife." In his cross-examination, this witness has explained that at the time of incident he was standing near the seat behind the driver to clear the doubt that due to over-loading the driver might not have seen the accused and Kuldip Chand. He has also answered in the affirmative that the accused was wearing yellow shirt and a jacket , at the relevant time. 6. Sh. Nalu Ram (P.W. 3) Retired Forest Ranger, is another eye witness. He has stated that he was sitting in the front seat of the bus which was being driven by Amar Singh (P.W. 1) and Sh. Kuldip Chand was conductor of the bus. 6. Sh. Nalu Ram (P.W. 3) Retired Forest Ranger, is another eye witness. He has stated that he was sitting in the front seat of the bus which was being driven by Amar Singh (P.W. 1) and Sh. Kuldip Chand was conductor of the bus. He has corroborated the statement of S/Sh. Amar Singh and Kuldip Chand. According to him, the bus started from Tang and it had hardly travelled 200 yards when the bell was sounded from the rear of the bus to stop it. At that time, the Conductor was issuing tickets in almost middle of the bus. The Driver asked who sounded the bell. The driver stopped the bus near Puli. The accused got down from the bus from the rear door and entered it from the front door. The accused demanded from the conductor as to why he did not stop the bus when he sounded the bell. The conductor told the accused that the bus was to be stopped by the Driver. At that moment the accused present in the Court, caught hold of Kuldip Chand conductor. In his presence the accused gave a blow with knife to conductor Kuldip Chand. The accused ran away from the spot. Conductor Kuldip Chand lifted his shin and blood oozed out from the knife wound. In cross-examination, he has further stated that the accused had grappled with Kuldip Chand with one hand and with the other he gave the knife blow. He has further explained that as far as he could recollect, the accused had caught hold of Kuldip Chand from his left hand and gave blow with the right hand but he was not sure. 7. From the evidence of these three eyewitnesses, it is proved beyond any doubt that it was the accused who had given knife blow to Kuldip Chand. The bus might have been over-loaded but it is established that conductor Kuldip Chand was standing at a place from where Amar Singh (P.W, 1), Driver of the bus, as well as Nalu Ram (P.W.3) could see the accused stabbing Kuldip Chand. Before the accused inflicted the stab injury on Kuldip Chand, they had also an altercation in respect of non-stopping of the bus despite sounding of the bell by the accused. S/Sh. Before the accused inflicted the stab injury on Kuldip Chand, they had also an altercation in respect of non-stopping of the bus despite sounding of the bell by the accused. S/Sh. Amar Singh and Kuldip Chand had admitted the suggestion made to them in cross-examination that the accused was wearing a fullsleeve shirt at the relevant time. By this suggestion, the presence of the accused at the relevant time is indirectly admitted. Sh. Amar Singh had further identified the accused by pointing out the disability in his left arm. He had stated this as well as the name of the accused in the FIR which was lodged by him after about 2 1/2 hours of the incident. As such, it is difficult to accept the defence taken by the accused that he was made scape-goat by the Police to satisfy the demand of H.R.T.C. employees to arrest the culprit who had assaulted Sh. Kuldip Chand and also because he was an ex-convict. 8. Sh. S. S. Kanwar, learned counsel for the accused, has urged that the only independent eye witness Sh. Nalu Ram (P.W. 3) has shattered the prosecution version by stating that the accused had grappled with Kuldip Chand, caught hold of him with his left hand and gave knife blow with right hand, as admittedly, the left hand of the accused is disabled. This argument is raised to be rejected. There is nothing on the record to show that what and how much is the disability of the left hand of the accused. Moreover, this witness is 65 years of age and his statement was recorded after about seven months of the incident. Therefore, he was likely to forget these minor details. 9. The next question for determination is whether the stab injury caused by the accused was simple or grievous. The Sessions Judge has held the injury as grievous on the opinion of Dr. D.N. Chadha that the injury was dangerous to life. Under Item Eighth of S.320,IPC, any hurt which endangers life is a grievous hurt. This has been further explained by Modi in his book Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, Eleventh Edition, that "Danger to life should be imminent." Such injuries should be extensive and implicate important structures and organs to prove fatal in the absence of surgical aid. In this back-ground, the evidence of Dr. This has been further explained by Modi in his book Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, Eleventh Edition, that "Danger to life should be imminent." Such injuries should be extensive and implicate important structures and organs to prove fatal in the absence of surgical aid. In this back-ground, the evidence of Dr. Amar Jit Singh Dadhwal (P.W. 14) does not lead to the conclusion that the injury inflicted by the accused on Kuldip Chand was grievous. The relevant portion of his observations is as under:- "There was penetrating cut wound on the left hypochondrium 1" below the costal margin Size 2 cm x 2 cms Penetrating into abdominal cavity. Fresh bleeding was present. Nature of the injury was grievous and weapon used was sharp. The injury was caused within 2 hours of my examination." 10. He has only used the word "grievous" in his statement as well as Medico-legal certificate Ex. P-O but has not given reasons for saying so. He had examined Sh. Kuldip Chand on 8th December, 1987 but had handed over his medico-legal certificate to the Police on 12th December, 1987. It seems the Police after receiving the medico-legal certificate, Ex. P-O, moved an application dated 18-12-1987 soliciting the opinion of the Medical Officer whether the injury caused to Sh. Kuldip Chand was dangerous to human life or not. On this application Dr. O.N. Chandra (P.W. 13) had made an endorsement that the injury sustained by Sh. Kuldip Chand was dangerous to life and would have caused death in the normal course. This endorsement, Ex. P-N, has been proved by Dr. D. N. Chadha in his statement. It is correct that it was Dr. D. N. Chadha who operated upon Sh. Kuldip Chand on 9-12-1987 and had also treated him but it is not stated by him that he had made the endorsement on 17-12-1987 after consulting the record of the patient, that is, Sh. Kuldip Chand. Admittedly, he had neither issued the medico-legal certificate nor examined Sh. Kuldip Chand from the medico-legal point of view. In cross-examination he could not tell the dimension of the injury as the record was not made available to him. As per the prosecution story, the weapon of offence was a house-hold knife and its metalled part is about 3 1/2" in length. The size of the wound is 1 cm. x 2 cm. In cross-examination he could not tell the dimension of the injury as the record was not made available to him. As per the prosecution story, the weapon of offence was a house-hold knife and its metalled part is about 3 1/2" in length. The size of the wound is 1 cm. x 2 cm. The place of wound is the left hypochondrium where there is abdominal cavity consisting of lot of flesh. Though the doctors have stated that the injury was penetrating into abdominal cavity touching interior surface of the stomach but have not further stated that any important structure or organ was involved in it. Therefore, in my opinion, the prosecution has not successfully proved that the injury inflicted by the accused on the person of Sh. Kuldip Chand was dangerous to life but it is proved on record that it was caused by a sharp edged weapon as the wound has been described as cut wound by Dr. Amarjit Singh Dadhwal (P.W.14). 11. In the result, the findings of the Sessions Judge are upset to the extent that the accused had caused grievous hurt to Sh. Kuldip Chand and it is held that the accused had caused simple injury with sharp edged weapon. 12. Sh. S. S. Kanwar, learned counsel for the accused, has not been able to show that Sh. Kuldip Chand was not a public servant and was not discharging his duties as such at the relevant time when he was inflicted simple injury with knife, that is, sharp edged weapon, by the accused. Therefore, I hold that the accused committed an offence under S. 332 of the IPC by voluntary causing hurt to Sh. Kuldip Chand who was a public servant and discharging his duty as such. He is a young man 22 years of age and is at the threshold of his life. He has already been convicted and sentenced for a period of 6 months in a case under S. 307, converted into S. 326, IPC by the Supreme Court, which offence he had committed at the age of about 17 years and is presently undergoing sentence of imprisonment at District Jail, Dharamshala. He is also handicapped by his left hand. Looking to all these circumstances, he should be given such a sentence which should deter him from committing any offence in future as well as reform him as a law abiding citizen. He is also handicapped by his left hand. Looking to all these circumstances, he should be given such a sentence which should deter him from committing any offence in future as well as reform him as a law abiding citizen. In my opinion, a sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-in the present case will meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the present appeal is partly accepted. The judgment dated 1-12-1988 of Sessions Judge is set aside partly that the accused is held guilty of an offence under S. 332 instead of S. 333, IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo further simple imprisonment for one month. The fine if recovered will be given to Sh. Kuldip Chand. It has been stated that the accused has already spent a period of 99 days in Police/judicial custody on 9.12-1987 to 4-2-1988 and thereafter from 1-12-1988 to 12-1-1989 for which he will be given set off in accordance with law. It is also made clear that the sentence awarded in this case will run concurrently with the sentence which the accused is already undergoing in the above mentioned case. Appeal partly allowed.