JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20.7.81 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh, convicting the appellant Ledia for the offence under Section 307 IPC and awarding a sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. five thousand and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment. Out of amount of fine of Rs. five thousand, a sum of Rs. three thousand has been directed to be paid to victim Chandu as compensation. 2. The brief facts are that on 11.6.1979, Dakhli w/o Chandu lodged an oral FIR at the Police Station, Hanumangarh, stating inter alia that in the morning at about 9 AM while she was plastering her house, her husband Chandu, injured, was sitting outside the house and her daughter Sugani was standing in the lane outside the house. She called her daughter Sugani. At that time, her neighbour Soni w/o accused Ledia asked her as to why she was abusing her. This led to quarrel between her on the one side and two ladies viz., Soni and Chidia on the other side. At that time, accused Ledia armed with a Gandasi alongwith other accused persons Gunia, Dayala and Tidia armed with lathies arrived there and started beating them. Accused Ledia with an intention to kill her husband Chandu, inflicted a Gandasi blow on his head, on account of which he fell down. All the other accused persons also gave him beating by lathies and gandasies. On this information, police registered a case for the offences under Sections 307, 323 and 34 IPC. The injured Chandu was examined by the doctor. After usual investigation, police filed a chalian against four accused persons viz., appellant Ledia and other accused persons Gunia, Dayala and Tidia for the offences under Sections 307, 323 read with 34 IPC. Appellant Ledia alongwith others was charged for the offences under sections 307, 323 read with 34 IPC. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined nine witnesses and produced certain documents. The trial Court held the accused appellant guilty of the offence under section 307 IPC but acquitted the other accused persons. 3. Assailing the judgment of conviction, Mr. D.K. Purohit contended that there are large number of infirmities in the prosecution case, which clearly indicates that a false case has been foisted. The trial Court held the accused appellant guilty of the offence under section 307 IPC but acquitted the other accused persons. 3. Assailing the judgment of conviction, Mr. D.K. Purohit contended that there are large number of infirmities in the prosecution case, which clearly indicates that a false case has been foisted. It is also submitted that injured Chandu (PW 5) has tried to change the place of incident from 'gali' to 'inside the house'. It is also submitted that there is no evidence to show that the appellant had any intention to kill injured Chandu. Thus, the submission of learned counsel is that the conviction of appellant cannot travel beyond 323 IPC and in any case beyond 325 IPC. 4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submits that there is overwhelming evidence to show that the accused appellant inflicted an injury on the left side of the head of the injured, which is grievous in nature. He further submits that grievous injury, which was on the vital part of the body, is sufficient evidence to lead inference that the appellant had the intention to murder Chandu. 5. Mr. B.N. Kalla appearing for the complainant submits that on account of the injury caused by accused appellant, the life of injured Chandu has become hell, inasmuch as he has suffered the paralysis and he is also not in the position to speak clearly. He has invited my attention to the condition of the injured recorded by the trial court. He has also pointed out that inspite of the fact that the conviction was recorded as back as in 1980, till now the compensation amount of Rs. three thousand has not been paid to the injured. 6. I have considered the rival contentions and perused the record. 7. A reading of the prosecution evidence shows that a quarrel took place in the morning of 11.6.79 between the two families living in the same vicinity. The unfortunate incident took place on account of male members joining the fray. However, it appears that the incident took place at the spur of the moment. PW 5 Chandu has categorically stated that accused Ledia arrived at the spot and the inflicted a Gandasi below on the left side of his head. It is also stated that all other accused persons also started beating him by lathies and Gandasies. However, it appears that the incident took place at the spur of the moment. PW 5 Chandu has categorically stated that accused Ledia arrived at the spot and the inflicted a Gandasi below on the left side of his head. It is also stated that all other accused persons also started beating him by lathies and Gandasies. He has, however, stated that Ledia, though used Gandasi but he inflicted injury by the opposite side of Gandasi i.e. the blunt side. PW 2 Dr. Rajendra Kumar Gupta has stated that he had examined the witness Chandu and prepared the report Ex.R 2. The injuries are reproduced as follows : "1. Swelling 3"x2" on left parieto occipital part of scalp, 2. Swelling 3"x3" on right temporal occipital part of scalp, and 3. Abrasion 1/4" x 1/4" on right knee joint." 8. Thus, the injury on the left side of the head is grievous in nature. PW 3 Paras Jain has stated that on 11.6.79, he was Medical Officer Incharge of the Medical Hospital, Hanumangarh. The injury No. 3 was simple in nature. For the injuries No. 1 and 2, the advice was given for x-ray. The x-ray report has been produced as Ex.R 5. The injury No. 1 has been found to be grievous as that being the fracture. PW 5 injured Chandu has categorically stated that Ledia gave a Gandasi blow on the left side of his head. That means this injury can be attributed to the appellant Ledia. The injured witness has also stated that the appellant Ledia inflicted the injury from the opposite side of the Gandasi. Thus, if the appellant had any intention to kill Chandu, he could have used the sharp edged side of the Gandasi. This fact alone is sufficient to indicate that the appellant only intended to cause grievous injury. In view of this, the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 IPC is not sustainable. 9. In view of the aforesaid, this appeal is partly allowed and the conviction of the appellant recorded under Section 307 IPC is converted to Section 325 IPC. The appellant is awarded one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. ten thousand for the offence under Section 325 IPC. Out of the said amount of Rs. ten thousand, a sum of Rs. eight thousand shall be paid to the victim Chandu. The appellant is awarded one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. ten thousand for the offence under Section 325 IPC. Out of the said amount of Rs. ten thousand, a sum of Rs. eight thousand shall be paid to the victim Chandu. The appellant is granted four months' time for depositing the amount of fine. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall further undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment. The learned C.J.M., Hanumangarh, is directed to procure the attendance of the accused appellant by issuing non-bailable warrant to serve out the rest part of the sentence.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******