V. B. Bansal, J. ( 1 ) NAZAR Mohd. @ Hanuman has filed this appeal aginst hisconviction under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, vide judgment dated 13. 10. 1976and sentence to R. I. for two years with a fine of Rs. 500. 00 or in default to undergofurther R. I. for three months vide order dated 21. 10. 1976 by an Additional Sessionsjudge, Delhi. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the case of the prosecution has been that on 28. 10. 1975 D. D. No. 6-A was recorded at Police Station Kamla Market on the basis of informationconveyed on telephone by Duty Constable from Irwin Hospital about the admission of Kanhaiya. Copy of this D. D. entry was given to S. I. Baldev Singh who, whileaccompanied by a Constable, reached the hospital and collected M. L. C. number31443 in respect ofkanhaiya. The injured was, however, declared by the Doctor tobe unfit for statement. ( 3 ) AMAR Singh son of Pratap Singh met the Police Officer in the hospital,whose statement was recorded. It was inter alia stated by Amar Singh that he wasa driver on truck No. DLL 221 and was working with one Ram Dhan at the sidingof Ajmeri Gate. It was also stated by him that on that day at about 11. 00 am. he wasstand ing at the Reri of Tara Chand, Tea vendor, and noticed exchange of hot words. over some money dealings between Kanhaiya Lal and Nazar Mohd. @ Hanumanand that he tried to intervene. He went on to state that in the meantime Nazarmohd. @ Hanuman inflicted knife injuries to Kanhaiya and that he took the injuredto his house at Seelampur and, thereafter, brought him to the hospital. It was alsostated by him that this incident was witnessed by Shankar, Tara Chand and manyothers. S. I. Baldev Singh made his endorsement on the statement of Amar Singhand Rucca was sent to the Police Station on the basis of which FIR No. 542 wasrecorded. ( 4 ) THE matter was investigated and statements of the witnesses were recorded. Kanhaiya Lal was found to be unfit for Statement and it was only on30. 10. 1975 that his statement was recorded after he was declared fit for thestatement by the Doctorat 11. 30 am. Kanhaiya Lal inter alia has deposed about theinflicting of knife injuries on him by Nazar Mohd. @ Hanuman. Nazar Mohd. Kanhaiya Lal was found to be unfit for Statement and it was only on30. 10. 1975 that his statement was recorded after he was declared fit for thestatement by the Doctorat 11. 30 am. Kanhaiya Lal inter alia has deposed about theinflicting of knife injuries on him by Nazar Mohd. @ Hanuman. Nazar Mohd. @hanuman was arrested and the Doctor opined injuries on the person of Kanhaiyalal to be grievous caused by sharp weapon. Investigations revealed that Nazarmohd. @ Hanuman had committed offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and, so, he waschallaned. ( 5 ) CHARGE under Section 307, IPC, was framed against the accused on 1. 7. 76 towhich he pleaded not guilty. In support of its case the prosecution examinedh. C. Raghuvansh Narain, PW/1; A. S. I. Mohinder Singh, PW/2; Shankar, PW/3;dr. Ashok Bachawat; PW/4; Kanhaiya, PW/5; Constable Srinivas; PW/6; Haribabu Gupta, PW/7; and S. I. Baldev Singh, PW/8. ( 6 ) STATEMENT of the accusd was recorded in terms of Section 313 of the Codeof Criminal Procedure, when incriminating evidence was put to him so as to givea chance to him to give explanation. He has denied all the allegations and statedthat he has been falsely implicated in the case. He has also pleaded that Kanhaiyalal suspected him of being instrumental in making cases against him and on thataccount he has been named to be an assailant. He has also claimed that as per hisinformation Kanhaiya Lal sustained injuries at the hands of someone else inseelampur and that he has been falsely implicated in the case. He did not produceany evidence in defence. Learned Trial Court after hearing arguments convictedand sentenced the accused, as REFERRED TO to above. ( 7 ) NO one has appeared for the appellant in spite of the fact that the matter waspart-heard yesterday and kept for today. ( 8 ) 1 have heard Shri N. K. Handa, learned Additional Standing Counsel for thestate, and have also gone through the record. ( 9 ) IN order to prove its case the prosecution had examined Kanhaiya Lal,injured, PW/5 and Shankar, an eye witness as PW/3. A perusal of the evidenceshows that Shankar, PW/3, has not supported the prosecution and has claimedhaving not seen the accused appellant inflicting injuries on Kanhaiya Lal. He has,however, admitted that Nazar Mohd. ( 9 ) IN order to prove its case the prosecution had examined Kanhaiya Lal,injured, PW/5 and Shankar, an eye witness as PW/3. A perusal of the evidenceshows that Shankar, PW/3, has not supported the prosecution and has claimedhaving not seen the accused appellant inflicting injuries on Kanhaiya Lal. He has,however, admitted that Nazar Mohd. @ Hanuman and Kanhaiya, injured, weretogether at the time of the incident and that Kanhaiya was taken alongwith him byamar Singh. Kanhaiya Lal, PW/5, has made categorical statement that a sum of. Rs. 70. 00 and a Chadar was due to him from Nazar Mohd. @ Hanuman and he hadmade a demand of this amount from Nazar Mohd. @ Hanuman, who stabbed himwith a knife. It was also claimed by him that if Amar Singh had not saved him, hewould have been killed. He went on to state that Amar Singh took him in Scooterto his mother in his house from where he was shifted to hospital, where heremained for seven days. He also admitted having made a statement to the police. During cross-examination he has denied that no injury was inflicted to him bynazar Mohd. @ Hanuman. ( 10 ) AMAR Singh was a witness of this occurrence on whose statement FIR wasrecorded. The prosecution was, however, unable to produce him in spite ofopportunities since he had already left the given address and his whereabouts werenot known. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that there was any intentionalwithholding of the material witness by the prosecution. A bear reading of thestatement of Kanhaiya Lal makes it abundantly clear that knife injuries wereinflicted on him by Nazar Mohd. @ Hanuman when the injured had made ademand of Rs. 70. 00 and Chadar from Nazar Mohd. @ Hanuman. ( 11 ) THE short question now for consideration is as to what offence wouldstand proved against the appellant from the evidence brought on record. ( 12 ) THE prosecution had examined Hari Babu Gupta, Record Clerk, Irwinhospital, New Delhi, as PW/7, who has proved the M. L. C. , Exhibit PW/7/a, inrespect of Kanhaiya Lal having signatures at point x to be in the hand of Dr. O. P. Khere. This M. L. C. was prepared by Dr. Khere. He has also proved the endorsement at point y to be in the hand of Dr. S. K. Kukreja, who declared the injuries ofkanhaiya Lal to be grievous. O. P. Khere. This M. L. C. was prepared by Dr. Khere. He has also proved the endorsement at point y to be in the hand of Dr. S. K. Kukreja, who declared the injuries ofkanhaiya Lal to be grievous. He has also proved endorsement at point "z regarding the injurd to be unfit for statement to be in the hand of Dr. Vijay Kumarsharma. He has also claimed that the whereabouts of these Doctors were notknown. As already REFERRED TO to, all that has been stated by Kanhaiya Lal, injured,was that he remained in the hospital for seven days. There is nothing in hisstatement to indicate that the accused had expressed his intention to kill thiswitness by use of force. The Doctor who declared the injuries to begrievous has notbeen examined and, thus, we do not have on record the material to indicate as towhat were the reasons for the Doctor coming to the conclusion that the injurieswere grievous in nature. The M. L. C. does not indicate that there was any fracturenor there is any such claim by Kanhaiya Lal, injured. In these circumstances, I amclearly of the view that the injuries have to be termed as simple caused by sharpobject and in this way the offence would fall under Section 324. In case Ganga Ramv. State (1968 Crl. L. J. (Vol. 74) 134) it has been held that even if the Doctor isexamined but the record of the operation, etc. is not produced and it is not clearfrom his statement as to how he came to the conclusion about the injury to be grievous , it should be deemed to be "simple" in nature. In case 0m Parkashdaulat Ram v. State (1969crl. L. J. ()Vol. 75)250)ithasbeenheldthatifthereasonson which the injuries are declared as grievous are not given in Court, the same areto be treated as "simple". In these circumstances the offence proved against theappellant would be under Section 324, Indian Penal Code only. ( 13 ) THE next question now for consideration is as to what should be thesentence. This case relates to an incident dated 27. 10. 1975 and the appellant wasconvicted on 13. 10. 1976. The case is now coming up for final disposal after morethan 18 years of the date of incident. The appellant was arrested for the offenceunder Section 307, Indian Penal Code and would have remained in custody beforebeing released on bail. This case relates to an incident dated 27. 10. 1975 and the appellant wasconvicted on 13. 10. 1976. The case is now coming up for final disposal after morethan 18 years of the date of incident. The appellant was arrested for the offenceunder Section 307, Indian Penal Code and would have remained in custody beforebeing released on bail. At this stage no useful purpose would be served bysendinghim to jail and no one has appeared on his behalf in the appeal. The ends of justice,in my view, would be met if the substantive sentence is reduced to the period forwhich the accused has already been in custody. ( 14 ) AS a result, the appeal is accepted in part. The judgment and order ofconviction is modified and the appellant is convicted for the offence under Section324, Indian Penal Code. The substantive sentence is reduced to the period forwhich the appellant has already been in custody.