JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28.5.81 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, Camp Chittorgarh, convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 307 IPC and sentencing him to undergo two and half years' rigorous imprisonment and for the offence under section 325 IPC, sentencing him to one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months' R.l. 2. The prosecution case is that on 5.9.79 at 4 A.M., Nathu Singh son of Kishan Singh lodged an oral FIR at Police Station, Chittorgarh stating inter alia that he alongwith his father after taking their meals were sleeping in the field of Chand Mai. They had taken the said field on contract. At about 12 in the night, accused Kishan Singh have a 'kulhari' blow on the head of his father. His father made a cry. The accused made an attempt to give a second blow He (informant) asked him as to why the accused was killing him. On this, accused Kishan Singh ran away. It is also stated that he could not identify one man was also running ahead of him whom he could not identify On hearing this, other persons namely Hamer Singh, Sardar Khan, Lal Singh, Chatar Singh and Bhanwar Singh etc. assembled. His father became unconscious. He was taken to the hospital in a bullock cart. The police registered a case for the offence under Section 307 IPC and proceeded with investigation. After challan, police filed a charge-sheet against the accused appellant and one Banshi Lal. 3. Both the accused persons were charged for the offences under section 307, 326 and 325 IPC. Accused Banshi Lal was discharged. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The trial court examined eight witnesses in support of the case. In his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused appellant stated that the entire was false and fabricated against him and he has been falsely implicated. 4. Assailing the judgment, it is contended by learned counsel Mr. Gupta for the appellant that the entire prosecution story is false and fabricated. It is pointed out that as per the FIR, the accused inflicted a blow on the head of the injured with the sharp edged side of an axe. 4. Assailing the judgment, it is contended by learned counsel Mr. Gupta for the appellant that the entire prosecution story is false and fabricated. It is pointed out that as per the FIR, the accused inflicted a blow on the head of the injured with the sharp edged side of an axe. However, during trial, it is stated that the accused inflicted and injury by a lathi. This improvement in the statement has been made with a view to fit it with the medical evidence. It is also submitted that both the withesses are categoric in saying that one lathi blow was given but*the injury report Ex.P 1 shows that there are four injuries. Learned counsel has also submitted that in the FIR, it is stated that there was one more person, who was running ahead of the accused appellant. The police filed a charge-sheet against Banshi Lal in addition to the appellant. It is submitted that the possibility cannot be ruled out that the injuries were caused by third person, may be Banshi Lal or some one else. 5. I have read the statement of PW 2 Kishan Singh Chauhan. He has stated that while he was sleeping, accused Kishan Singh gave a lathi blow, who was having a lathi with iron cap. He also stated that he remained in the hospital for about one month and five days in unconscious condition. PW 3 Nathu Singh son of injured Kishan Singh Chauhan, PW 2, has stated that the accused inflicted a lathi blow on the head of his father. He subsequently stated that 2-3 lathi blows were given by the accused on the head of his father. PW 1 Dr. Kailash Chandra has stated that he examined the injured and found the following injuries- "1. Lacerated wound 1" X 1/2" upto bone depth on the right side of forehead 1/2" lateral to mid line, 2. Lacerated wound 2" X 1/2" upto bone depth on the right side of fronto parietal region, 3. Lacerated wound 3/4" X 1/4" X 1/4" on the right side of maxillary region below lower lid." 6. A reading of the statement of PW 3 Nathu Singh discloses that he has changed his version from what he stated in the FIR. In the FIR, he has stated that the accused was armed with a 'Kulhari'. Lacerated wound 3/4" X 1/4" X 1/4" on the right side of maxillary region below lower lid." 6. A reading of the statement of PW 3 Nathu Singh discloses that he has changed his version from what he stated in the FIR. In the FIR, he has stated that the accused was armed with a 'Kulhari'. PW 2 Kishan Singh has categorically stated that the accused gave a lathi blow on his head. PW 3 Nathu Singh initially stated that one lathi blow was given but subsequently, he stated that three lathi blows were given. It clearly appears that the said witnesses have tried to improve the case and they are concealing something material. Be that as it may, both the witnesses are consistent that a blow was given by the accused appellant. There are three injuries on the person of the injured and all the three are grievous in nature and, therefore, even if one injury is attributed to the appellant, he is liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 325 IPC. 7. It is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that at the time of incident, appellant was 18 years of age and, as such, it is mandatory to give him benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is partly allowed. The appellant's conviction under Section 307 is set-aside and conviction under Section 325 IPC is affirmed. However, instead of sentencing him, it is directed that appellant Kishan Singh shall be released on probation on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5000/- and one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court with the undertaking to receive the sentence as and when called upon to do so and to keep peace and be of good behaviour during the period of one year.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******