P. K. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER No. 1 challenges the order of conviction under S. 341, Indian Penal Code, and sentence of one month's simple Imprisonment, whereas petitioner No. 2 challenges the order of conviction under S. 326, IPC, and sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 50/-, in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five days, passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-C. J. M. Balasora, in S. T. Case No. 5/22 of 1989 which has been confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Balasore, in Criminal Appeal No. 15/119 of 1993/89. ( 2 ) THE petitioners faced trial in the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-C. J. M. , Balasora, under Ss. 341/294/307/34, IPC, on the allegation that they had wrongfully restrained Kartik Behera (P. W. 2), hurled abusive words against him in a public place and attempted to commit murder. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 6-11-1988 in the morning, informant (P. W. 1), victim (P. W. 2) and six to seven other persons including some witnesses were cleaning their tent near a tank locally known as 'dandagadia". At that time accused Raghu alias Raghunath Behara (petitioner No. 2) was preparing a tooth-stick near the place of occurrence with a knife and his father (petitioner No. 1) was standing nearby. Kartik Behera asked the accused persons to clear the outstanding amount due from them. The accused persons got annoyed and used abusive words against Kartik Behera. Accused Akhil Behera (petitioner No. 1) ran towards kartik Behera and caught hold of his hand and accused Raghu (petitioner No. 2) followed his father and stabbed P. W. 2 on the abdomen with the knife. The victim fell down while the accused persons fled away. The victim was removed to the hospital for treatment with the help of the informant and other villagers and thereafter F. I. R. was lodged by P. W. 1 and a case was registered under S. 307/34, IPC. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and the accused persons after being committed faced their trial. ( 3 ) THE plea of the accused persons was one of denial. ( 4 ) DURING the trial, the prosecution examined a witness of whom P. W. 1 is the informant, P. Ws. 3 and 4 are the eye-witnesses and P. W. 2 is the victim. P. Ws. ( 3 ) THE plea of the accused persons was one of denial. ( 4 ) DURING the trial, the prosecution examined a witness of whom P. W. 1 is the informant, P. Ws. 3 and 4 are the eye-witnesses and P. W. 2 is the victim. P. Ws. 6 and 7 are the doctors; P. W. 8 is the Investigating Officer and P. W. 6 is a witnesses to seizure of the knife (M. O. II ). P. W. 6, the doctor, found one punctured wound bleeding 11/2" x 1/2" (depth not ascertained) on the left side of the abdomen 2 inches below the coastal margin. P. W. 7, the Surgery Specialist, also found likewise. Exts. 3 and 5 are their respective opinions. ( 5 ) THE trial Court on consideration of the materials on record found that petitioner No. 1 caught hold of the hand of P. W. 2 and petitioner No. 2 had inflicted the blow. However, the trial Court held that offence under S. 397, IPC, had not been made out and convicted petitioner No. 2 under S. 326, IPC. Similarly, petitioner No. 1 was found guilty only, under S. 341, IPC. Both the accused persons were acquitted of the other charges. In appeal, on a re-assessment of the evidence, the appellate Court has confirmed the order of conviction and sentence. The aforesaid order of conviction and sentence as confirmed by the appellate Court is under challenge in this revision. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently argued that in view of the several contradictions in the prosecution evidence, the petitioners should be acquitted. Alternatively he has admitted that in any view of the matter, the conviction under S. 326, IPC cannot be sustained and at best it can be said that an offence under S. 324, IPC, has been made out. He has submitted for reduction of the sentence. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has supported the order of conviction and sentence. ( 7 ) ON perusal of the materials on record and keeping in view the limited jurisdiction of a revisional Court, it is difficult to take a different view in the matter so far as the actual incident is concerned. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has supported the order of conviction and sentence. ( 7 ) ON perusal of the materials on record and keeping in view the limited jurisdiction of a revisional Court, it is difficult to take a different view in the matter so far as the actual incident is concerned. The judgement of the Court below is based on discussion of the relevant materials on remand and in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, I am not inclined to take a different view in the matter. ( 8 ) THE next question is as to whether the offence committed by petitioner No. 2 is one under S. 326 or under S. 324, IPC No. doubt, P. Ws. 6 and 7 the two doctors have opined that the injury was grievous. Their evidence is not clear as to why they considered the injury to be grievous. The mere opinion of a doctor that the injury is grievous without supporting reasons may not be sufficient in every case to hold that grievous injury as envisaged in S. 329, IPC has been caused. Surprisingly, in the case on hand the depth of the injury has not been given either by P. W. 6 or by P. W. 7. The injured (P. W. 2) was discharged from the hospital after about seven days and there is no materials on record to indicate that the injury had endangered the life of P. W. 2. In the absence of any details and reasons. It is difficult to come to a conclusion that, in fact, the injury was grievous in nature as described in any of the clauses of S. 320, IPC. Accordingly, it is held that in the absence of any cogent materials to hold that the injury was grievous in nature, it must be held that the injury was simple in nature and accordingly, the conviction of petitioner No. 2 is altered to one under S. 324, IPC. Similar view has been expressed by me in Crl. Rev. No. 378 of 1994, Abhiram Mukhi v. State of Orissa decided on 24-2-1996. ( 9 ) NOW the question of sentence. The occurrence took place more than seven years back. Similar view has been expressed by me in Crl. Rev. No. 378 of 1994, Abhiram Mukhi v. State of Orissa decided on 24-2-1996. ( 9 ) NOW the question of sentence. The occurrence took place more than seven years back. From the record it appears that petitioner No. 1 where conviction under S. 341 is upheld, was aged about 45 years at the time of trial and was in jail custody from 6-11-1983 to 24-11-1986, a period of just more than two weeks. Keeping in view the background and setting of the offence and the age of the petitioner No. 1, I am not inclined to send him to further custody. The sentence imposed on petitioner No. 1 under S. 341, IPC, is reduced to period already undergone. ( 10 ) SO far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned, it is found that he was in custody from 8-11-1988 to 2-12-1998, a period of slightly more than three weeks. He was aged about 30 years at the time of trial. No previous conviction has been alleged against him. Keeping in view the nature of the offence and the nature of weapon used, which was a pen knife and the background of the case, and in view of the conviction under S. 324, IPC, it is thought fit and proper to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone and to impose a fine of rupees one thousand, in default, to suffer further imprisonment for two months and accordingly I no direct. Out of the fine amount, if realised, a sum of Rs. 500/- (five hundred) may be paid to the victim (P. W. 2 ). ( 11 ) THE Criminal Revision is allowed in part and the order of conviction and sentence is modified to the extent indicated above. Revision partly allowed. .