JUDGMENT 1. - Accused appellant Lala Ram was tried and convicted Under Sections 307 & 326, Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra. Learned Sessions Judge passed the sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for offence Under section 307 Indian Penal Code. For the offence Under section 326, Indian Penal Code sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- was passed and it was ordered that in default of payment of fine, the accused appellant will undergo simple imprisonment for one month. He also ordered that both the sentences will run concurrently. He further ordered that after Case falls Under section 324 Indian Penal Code realisation of the amount of fine, Rs. 300/- will be paid to the heirs of the injured. It is against this conviction and sentence that appellant has preferred this appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Briefly stated on 29.12.1978 Gula Ram injured was passing through the market in village Kawas. Accused appellant inflicted a knife blow in his stomach. His brother PW 1 Kushal was called by Tulchha Ram to the place of occurrence. PW 1 Kushal took the injured Gula Ram to Government Dispensary, Kawas. He was advised to take the injured to Government Hospital, Barmer where he reached alongwith the injured. Injured Gula Ram was admitted in the hospital at about 4.30 p.m. His statement was recorded by ASI Jalam Singh. In his statement (Ex. P/19), Gula Ram gave story that he had gone with Tulchha Ram to a barber's shop for hair cutting. When he was returning, accused appellant met him near the shop of Taga Ram. Narsa Harijan also met them. All of them were talking, then accused appellant came and inflicted a knife blow in his stomach. Gula Ram fell down. Then his brother was called who took him to hospital. A case was registered and after investigation, challan was presented. Learned Sessions Judge tried and convicted the accused appellant as stated above. 3. During the investigation, after the accused appellant was arrested he gave an information leading to recovery of knife which was recovered at his instance. It was sent for chemical examination. Blood smeared soil was also taken and sent for chemical examination. Learned Sessions Judge tried and convicted the accused appellant as stated above. 3. During the investigation, after the accused appellant was arrested he gave an information leading to recovery of knife which was recovered at his instance. It was sent for chemical examination. Blood smeared soil was also taken and sent for chemical examination. 4. During the trial, prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and defence examined only one witness. Out of them, PW 2 Tulchha, PW 3 Nanga, PW 4 Narsing Ram, PW 5 Taga Ram and PW 8 Narsa Ram Harijan are the eye-witnesses. Injured Gula Ram died before he could be examined by the prosecution. The prosecution examined two doctors and they are PW 6 Dr. Shyam Sunder and PW 7 Dr. Madan Lal Calla. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that statements of eye-witnesses have been recorded with delay and this makes the whole case doubtful. He further submitted that the injury caused to Gula Ram was not dangerous to life. According to him, it was not even grievous. Lastly, he submitted that the case of the accused appellant does not travel beyond Section 324, Indian Penal Code and since the accused appellant has been in custody for about three months and there are mitigating circumstances, therefore, if his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone, it will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. On the other hand learned Public Prosecutor contended that there was no delay in recording statement of witnesses. He further submitted that the injury in the stomach of Gula Ram was sufficient to cause death and in the end, he also submitted that there are no mitigating circumstances in favour of the accused appellant. 6. I have considered the rival contentions advanced by learned counsel. The first question before me as to who caused injury to Gula Ram. PW 1 Kushal Singh has stated that he was called by Tulchha Das and he reached at the spot immediately. He found his brother lying on the road and having an injury, in his stomach. He also stated that the injured was lying near the shop of Mota Ram, Narsingh Das and Taga Ram. PW 2 Tulchha stated that he saw accused appellant suddenly attacking on Gula. Accused appellant inflicted a knife blow in the stomach of Gula and ran away. He also stated that the injured was lying near the shop of Mota Ram, Narsingh Das and Taga Ram. PW 2 Tulchha stated that he saw accused appellant suddenly attacking on Gula. Accused appellant inflicted a knife blow in the stomach of Gula and ran away. He has corroborated the fact that he went to brother of Gula Ram and informed him who came immediately and then Gula Ram was taken to Government Dispensary at Kawas from where he was taken to Government Hospital, Barmer by train. PW 3 Nanga has stated that the accused appellant inflicted the knife blow in the stomach of Gula Ram and then ran away. It is found from the evidence of PW Narsingh Ram that it was accused Lala Ram who inflicted a knife blow in the stomach of Gula and then ran away. PW 5 Taga Ram saw accused appellant inflicting a knife blow with closed fists on the stomach of Gula Ram. According to him he saw that blood was oozing from the injury which was inflicted in the stomach of Gula Ram. This injury was caused by a knife. PW 8 Narsa Ram also stated that he saw the accused appellant inflicting knife blow in the stomach of Gula Ram. After sustaining the injury Gula Ram fell down and when Kushala Ram came, Gula Ram was taken to the Dispensary where doctor gave him first aid. Gula Ram could not be examined because he died and was not available for statement before the Court. From the evidence of above eye-witnesses it is well proved that it was accused appellant who inflicted injury on the stomach of Gula Ram. A knife was recovered on the information and at the instance of accused appellant. Accused appellant was arrested on 31.12.1978 by arrest memo Ex. P10. On the same day he gave an information Under section 27 of the Evidence Act which is Ex. P/11. It was recorded by PW 11 Khim Singh, ASI. A knife was recovered at the instance of the accused by Ex. P/12 before `motbirs' - Khinvraj and Shivji Ram on 31.12.1978 at 4.30 p.m. Khinvraj PW 12 has stated that the appellant took the Police to his house and a knife was recovered at his instance before witnesses. The knife was article 3. Thus, it is well proved that knife art. P/12 before `motbirs' - Khinvraj and Shivji Ram on 31.12.1978 at 4.30 p.m. Khinvraj PW 12 has stated that the appellant took the Police to his house and a knife was recovered at his instance before witnesses. The knife was article 3. Thus, it is well proved that knife art. 3 was recovered at the instance of accused appellant and it was the accused an accused alone who inflicted knife blow on the stomach of Gula Ram. 7. So far as recording of statement of witnesses with delay is concerned, in the facts and circumstances of this case it is not much material. These eye-witnesses cannot be regarded as witnesses who might have been procured after the incident had taken place. Learned counsel has cited decision rendered in Radhey Shyam & Bachala @ Narayan v. State of Raj., reported in 1985 (10) RCC 145 and contended that delay in examining the eye-witnesses by the investigating agency creates doubt in creditability of the prosecution witnesses. Aforesaid citation is quite different on facts as there was only one eye-witness in that case whose conduct was not normal. There were other circumstances as well and delay was not the sole ground to disbelieve the testimony of the witness. In the instant case, it is well proved from the evidence on record that the accused appellant inflicted injury in the stomach of Gula Ram. 8. So far as the nature of injury is concerned, statement of doctors are relevant. PW 6 Dr. Shyam Sunder examined Gula Ram on 29.12.1978 and gave first aid. He did not prepare any injury report. When Gula Ram was admitted in the Government hospital, Barmer, PW 7 Dr. Madan Lal Calla examined him on 29.12.1978 and found following injury: Cut wound on apegastic region 1" x 1/2" According to him he prepared Ex. P/4. The injury was simple in nature and was caused by sharp object. He stated that operation of Gula Ram was performed by Dr. Bapna and he had called him to see the injury. Thereafter he sent Ex. P/5 to the SHO. According to this report, the injury was grievous. During his statement Dr. Madan Lal Calla has stated that the injury was sufficient to cause death of Gula Ram in the ordinary course of nature but since he did not perform operation and Dr. Bapna has not been produced, this statement of Dr. Thereafter he sent Ex. P/5 to the SHO. According to this report, the injury was grievous. During his statement Dr. Madan Lal Calla has stated that the injury was sufficient to cause death of Gula Ram in the ordinary course of nature but since he did not perform operation and Dr. Bapna has not been produced, this statement of Dr. Madan Lal Calla cannot be regarded to hold that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It was necessary for the prosecution to give details as to how this injury was sufficient to cause death of Gula Ram in the ordinary course of nature. Prosecution did not examine Dr. Bapna who performed operation neither did it produce the indoor patient bed-head ticket or operation notes of Gula Ram. Learned Sessions Judge was not right in holding that the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Leaned Public Prosecutor relied on Shukla v. State of Raj., 1996 Cr.L.J. 1283 , and submitted that action of the accused appellant was sufficient to prove that he intended to cause death of Gula Ram. This citation is distinguishable on facts of the case. There were as many as three stable wounds and two incised wounds on the person of the injured and in those circumstances it was held that the offence comes within purview of Section 307, Indian Penal Code. Present one is a case of single injury. 9. In order to see the nature of injuries, this Court in Roopa v. State of Raj., 1966 RLW 138 , enumerated the following four point criteria : 1) That danger to life from an injury should be imminent to constitute it as a grievous one. Haemorrhage, shock or injuries implicating important structures or organs are instances of injuries causing imminent danger. Extensiveness of the injuries may also cause imminent danger. Injuries which only cause remote danger to life cannot be treated as dangerous to life. 2) That the concept of an injury dangerous to life cannot in the very nature of things be very precise. Haemorrhage, shock or injuries implicating important structures or organs are instances of injuries causing imminent danger. Extensiveness of the injuries may also cause imminent danger. Injuries which only cause remote danger to life cannot be treated as dangerous to life. 2) That the concept of an injury dangerous to life cannot in the very nature of things be very precise. While there may be cases which can be easily placed either in the category or injury dangerous to life or in the other category, there may be marginal and border line cases where it may be very difficult to categorise the injuries as dangerous to life or not and in such cases the medical experts may also differ. 3) That the concept of injury dangerous to life being not very precise, it is necessary that the medical witnesses should not remain content with making bald statement that the injury in a particular case is dangerous to human life. He should place all relevant dates namely, whether the injury caused haemorrhage or shock or implicated important structures or organs or was very extensive or otherwise caused imminent danger and should also state the various grounds on which he considers the injury to be dangerous one. 4) That in arriving at the finding whether an injury is dangerous to human life or not, the Court should apply its mind to all the relevant dates brought on record and to the reasons given by the medical witness or witnesses and record its finding after an overall consideration of the material on record, giving reasons for its conclusion. 10. Tested at the anvil of these points, the injury caused to Gula Ram cannot be treated even as grievous what to talk of sufficient to cause death, dr. Madan Lal Calla PW 7 has not furnished details about operations though he was called by Doctor Bapna to see the injury. He does not eve tell that the operation was performed before him. It appears from his statement that he was invited by Dr. Bapna after the operation was performed. He has admitted even in cross-examination that when he examined Gula Ram at 4.45 p.m. Gula was conscious. From his statement the only conclusion is that the injury which he found on the person of Gula Ram was simple in nature. It appears from his statement that he was invited by Dr. Bapna after the operation was performed. He has admitted even in cross-examination that when he examined Gula Ram at 4.45 p.m. Gula was conscious. From his statement the only conclusion is that the injury which he found on the person of Gula Ram was simple in nature. Therefore, I am of the clear view that the case does not travel beyond Section 324, Indian Penal Code. 11. So far as point of sentence is concerned, the accused appellant has already remained in judicial custody for 81 days which is sufficient in the circumstances of the present case because the matter relates to 1978 and the appellant suffered financial as well as mental loss for 18 years. This is in itself a mitigating circumstance. In the result, I partly allow this appeal and alter conviction of the accused appellant from Section 307/326 to 324, Indian Penal Code and sentence him to the period already undergone.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******