JUDGMENT R.P. Gupta, J. 1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 4.3.87 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Panna, whereby the appellant was convicted for having committed an offence punishable u/s 3071. P. C. and sentenced to R. I. for four years. 2. It has been found by the trial Court that this appellant caused 8 injuries on the head, face, ear, eyes of his 'Bhabhi' (elder brother's wife) Smt. Ramkali on 25.9.85 at about 7.00 p. m. in the area of Jatupura near Putaketh. The injuries were found dangerous to life. 3. The finding of guilt of accused is based on evidence of Ramkali (P. W. 1), Jagdish (P. W. 4) who is eye-witness to the assault. Achhelal is (P. W. 2) who saw Ramkali lying in injured condition and accused standing there armed with lathi. Jahirlal (P. W. 3) husband of Ramkali and also brother of accused who heard the shrieks of Ramkali that she was being hit by Ramswaroop and rushed there and saw Achhelal standing nearby and Ramswaroop escaping with 'Danda' while Ramakali was lying in a pool of blood in the field. There is medical evidence of Dr. Sathe (P. W. 6) who examined Ramkali at 10.30. p. m. on 29th Sept. and noticed 9 injuries on her person, of which 5 lacerated wounds were on the head, one on the ear and one on the right eye, one on the right ear and one on the right hand which was found completely fractured. Their details may be noticed here as under:- (i) 1 1/4" lateral to the eye-brow and the right eye. It is irregular in size, shape and 3" x 1/4" skin depth in size, (ii) Lacerated wound on the right of the skull, upper and of the wound, 4" above the root of the right ear which is downward upto the back of the right ear which is 2" posterior to the right ear. It was irregular in size and shape, (iii) Lacerated wound on the right of skull 3" above mid of the right eye-brow backward upto the upper end of the injury No. 2. It was irregular in size and shape, (iii) Lacerated wound on the right of skull 3" above mid of the right eye-brow backward upto the upper end of the injury No. 2. It is irregular in shape and size, contour 2 1/2" x 1 1/4" skin deep in size, (iv) Lacerated wound on the right side of back of skull 1" posterior to the mid of the injury No. 2 Irregular in shape and size, oblique in direction and 3" x 1/4" x skin deep in size, (v) lacerated wound parallel to the injury No. 4 irregular in shape and size, contour and 2 3/4" X 1/4" skin deep in size, (vi) Lacerated wound on the right of the face 1 1/2" anterior to the pagus of right ear. It is oblique in direction, irregular in size and 3/4 x 1/4" x skin deep in size, (vii) Right eye is completely black i. e. ferose subconjunctival hemorrhage, ecchymosis sorrounding eye as well as both lids of the eyes, (viii) Lacerated wound of right ear. It is from the base of the helox, surrounding interiorly from pagus turned posterior and ruptured completely right pinna. Border is irregular and zig zag 3/4 x 1/4" in size, fresh bleeding from the ear. (ix) Bruises on the face posterior aspect of right arm, slightly oblique in direction and in the mid of arm. It is 3" x 1 1/2" in size. There is protracted fracture of right humerus. Patient was unable to speak properly, Doctor opined that these injuries were caused by a hard and blunt object. Injuries have been found to be caused 3 to 4 hours before the medical examination. Injuries No. 8 was found to be grievous in nature. Exact opinion about the other injuries was deferred till receipts of the X-ray report about the skull. In the latter opinion, dated 22nd Nov. 85, the doctor opined that the injuries of Ramkali could be proved dangerous to her life and all the injuries on the right side of the head were also dangerous and medical treatment was essential to save her life, as there had been lot of bleeding from the wounds. The doctor also opined that these injuries could be caused by lathi when shown to him by the police on 11.9.85. The doctor also opined that these injuries could be caused by lathi when shown to him by the police on 11.9.85. This doctor opined that all these injuries had been caused with hard and blunt object and were about 3-4 hours old at the time of examination. Injury No. 8 which was on the right ear was grievous injury. He had advised X-ray of the injuries. According to him, they could be caused by lathi and these injuries could be dangerous to life of Ramkali, as all the injuries were on the right side of the head. It was necessary to manage her medical help to save her life as there was lot of bleeding also and the patient was semiconscious. According to him the injuries should have been caused by a lathi which was shown to him by Police later on (this lathi had been recovered by Police at the instance of the accused during the investigation). Other medical evidence is of the doctor Kuldip Shrivastava Asst. Surgeon (P. W. 7). he had got obtained X-rays of the injuries of Ramkali and examined them. He did not find any bony injury on the skull, but found fractures right arm of Ramkali. He gave report Ex. P. 13. A lathi recovered from accused during investigation, on his arrest two days later, was chemically examined at chemical laboratory, Sagar and was found to have blood-stains on it. 4. In appeal, the appellant has challenged these findings of the trial Court. In the grounds of appeal, it was urged that witnesses are not reliable and in any case offence punishable u/s 307 IPC is not established. 5. I have perused the evidence of witnesses in detail and also perused all the documents including FIR. The details of injuries of Ramkali have already been noticed. There were injuries caused by a lathi, by the very sight of measure of them, and the doctor has clearly opined so that they could be caused by a lathi. Ramkali has narrated in unequivocal terms that she was hit by this accused who is her 'Dewar' (younger brother of her husband) from the back side while she was returning from field, she fell down and he hit again and she became unconscious. Jagdish (P. W. 4) was with them. Jagdish had supported this version, as P. W. 4. Ramkali has narrated in unequivocal terms that she was hit by this accused who is her 'Dewar' (younger brother of her husband) from the back side while she was returning from field, she fell down and he hit again and she became unconscious. Jagdish (P. W. 4) was with them. Jagdish had supported this version, as P. W. 4. That husband had heard the shrieks of his wife that she was being hit by Ram Swaroop and she be rescued. He rushed to the spot where Ramkali was lying and Achhelal was attempting to take her out of waterlogged field on to the 'mend' and Ramswaroop was running towards jungle. Achhelal had given his supporting statement. The FIR in this case is Ex. P. 1 on the statement of Ramkali herself on 25.9.85 at 22.10 hrs., that is about 3 hours after the incident. She was returning from field to village Jatupura and her Dewar Ramswaroop was also returning to the village. Jagdish was also returning near the 'Phoota' field. She had spoken that her husband was not a weak person. At this Ramswaroop said that she should not threaten him like this. She question If he could kill her. At this Ramswaroop gave a lathi blow on right temple and she fell. He gave other lathi blows while she was lying down. She shrieked. Thereafter she gained consciousness while she was being taken on 'Charpai'. She said that there was some ill feeling between her and her Dewar regarding partition of their joint land and he used to threaten to kill them. 6. This FIR is properly proved. It fully corroborates the evidence of Ramkali. In court she has vouched the same story of the incident. 7. In cross examination of Ramkali and Jagdish certain confrontations had been made from their previous statements. But I found that none of them is on any substantive point. They are merely confrontations regarding use of different languages to state the same fact and they were not material at all. 8. The trial Court has rightly reached the conclusion that the evidence of these witnesses read with medical evidence and the FIR prove beyond doubt that this accused gave all these lathi blows and caused nine injuries on the person of Ramkali on 25.9.85. 8. The trial Court has rightly reached the conclusion that the evidence of these witnesses read with medical evidence and the FIR prove beyond doubt that this accused gave all these lathi blows and caused nine injuries on the person of Ramkali on 25.9.85. According to the trial Court, since the doctor has opined these injuries as dangerous to life, it was a case of attempt to murder and atleast there was a fracture on one arm of victim. Hence, the conviction. The only question which may be considered in this case is whether it is a case covered u/s 307 IPC or not or it is only a case of causing grievous hurt punishable u/s 325 IPC. 9. The accused had produced two defence witnesses who are totally irrelevant as one of his brother who says that the accused did not hit his 'Bhabi', but he was not nearby at the time of incident and D. W. 1 only says that he reached the spot on knowing of the incident and found Ramkali injured and she was carried to the house of her husband, on the way, She was crying, a word which he thought was 'Sanjela' and he did not make out the word 'Ganjela', Ganjela is alias name of the accused Ramswaroop. If any thing this evidence, goes against the accused. 10. The evidence of Asstt. Surgeon who examined X-rays of this accused shows that injury No. 8 was found to be grievous in nature. This was an injury on the right ear. It has ruptured completely the pinna of the ear. Doctor Sathe (P. W. 6) had stated that, if not treated, the injury could prove dangerous to life. It is also made clear from the evidence that Ram Kali remained in hospital for a month for treatment. But what treatment was given is not known. For an act to be covered u/s 307, IPC, it is necessary that the injuries caused should ordinarily suffice in the ordinary course of nature to clause death or the act should be inherently so dangerous to life that, but for providential escape, it would cause death. When specific injuries are caused with specified weapon, the best test is that the courts is to look at the consequence of the injuries. It is not like a case of firing where slight change of angle makes difference. When specific injuries are caused with specified weapon, the best test is that the courts is to look at the consequence of the injuries. It is not like a case of firing where slight change of angle makes difference. It may be that even in the case of lathi blows, a slight change in the quantity of force or in the site of injury might have made vitai difference between life and death, but then it appears to me that in a case like this where fracture on the head is not caused by blows, even though so many blows were given in the head. The inference should be that it is a case of causing grievous injuries rather than a case of attempt to murder. The patient victim was conscious within 3 hours of the injuries and had herself given FIR. So I am of the considered view that the offence of the accused appellant falls u/s 325 IPC and not u/s 307 IPC. I convert the conviction from Section 307 IPC to 325 IPC. 11. As regard the sentence, I find that the attack by the accused was a so heinous on a lady on her vital part like head causing smashing of ear and fracture of arm and a number of injuries on the head, that a severe punishment should be meted out to him even for the offence u/s 325 IPC which is punishable for imprisonment upto 7 years. The appellant has been awarded imprisonment to 4 years and fine. I feel, that should be the sentence for his offence punishable u/s 325 IPC. So I maintain this sentence. In view of my discussion, I convert the conviction from section 307 IPC to Section 325 IPC, but maintain the sentence of R. I. for 4 years. The appellant shall surrender to his bound to undergo the sentence. A warrant of modification and confirmation shall accordingly be sent to the trial Court to see that the appellant undergoes his sentence.