JUDGMENT 1. - Through this appeal Uda challenges his conviction under section 307 IPC and a sentence of three years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara vide his judgment dated 22.9.82. 2. The facts leading to this appeal are that on 8.10.81 Prem Chand lodged a written report (Ex.P. 1) at 9.30 p.m. at Police Station Kareda stating that on the same evening at about 8.30 p.m. Udai Ram inflicted a knife blow in the abdomen of Sola. On this report, a case under section 307 IPC was registered. After investigation the police submitted a challan. To the charge framed against accused appellant under section 307 IPC he pleaded not guilty. The to prosecution examined P.W. 1 Sola, P.W. 2 Laxman, P.W. 3 Prem Chand, P.W. 4 Dr. D.R. Sharma, PW. 5 Nanu, PW. 6 Basantilal, PW. 7 Bhanwarlal, P.W. 8 Suva Singh and PW. 9 Sharif Mohd. Accused in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. denied accusation. His case was that he was beaten by Prema, Deepchand, Basanti, Sola, Chhoga, Nanu, Jangu and Lachman and he even lost his tooth. He examined Dr. Nagesh Binju a Dental Surgeon in his defence. 3. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the learned counsel for the parties held that Sole had sustained one injury at the hands of the accused in his abdomen. He, therefore, convicted and sentenced him as stated above. Mr. Kalla, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the trial court has erred in placing reliance on the statements of witnesses and the accused ought to have been given benefit of doubt. His further contention was that in any case the act of the accused did not travel beyond Section 308 IPC. Pointing out that the accused had already remained in custody for 22 days he submitted that this may be considered sufficient sentence keeping in view the fact that the occurrence had taken place some 18 years back. 4. Learned PP., on the other hand tried to support the judgment of the trial court. He submitted that in case the lenient view is taken in the matter of sentence adequate compensation be awarded to the injured. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. PW. 4. Learned PP., on the other hand tried to support the judgment of the trial court. He submitted that in case the lenient view is taken in the matter of sentence adequate compensation be awarded to the injured. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. PW. 1 Sola deposes that in the evening when he was talking to Shyamlal, standing outside the hotel of Prem chand, he saw accused coming towards him who told him as to why did he approach the police in the matter of heard men and when he told that he did not go to the police the accused inflicted a knife blow in his stomach. He further says that Laxman also deposes that accused had inflicted knife blow in the abdomen of Sole and he had taken out the same. Prem Chand P.W. 3 deposes that on hearing noise he went there and he was informed by Nanu that Uda had inflicted knife blow to Sola. Nanu, P.W. 5 says that he was seeing from a distance of 2-4 hands that the accused pierced knife in the stomach of Uda and thereafter Leman took it out. There is thus overwhelm in evidence on record to prove that it was accused who had thrust knife In abdomen of Sola. 6. Sola has emphatically denied the suggestion that he had fallen on a pointed blade and suffered injury. The accused has rat led any evidence in support of the suggestion put to Sole. The direct evidence is corroborated by the testimony of Dr. D.R. Sharma, P.W. 4 who deposes that there was a stab wound in the abdomen of Sole whereby his intestine had come out. 7. The case for the appellant was that Sola and others had beaten him and he had lost his tooth In that occurrence. Dr. Nagesh Binju, D.W. 1 who had examined the teeth of the accused on 13.10.81 states in categorical terms that Lida had not lost his tooth and there was no injury on the gums, lips or near the teeth. He also says that even the teeth had not loosened. This being the defence evidence, the version of the accused cannot be accepted that he was beaten in the occurrence and he had lost his tooth. He also says that even the teeth had not loosened. This being the defence evidence, the version of the accused cannot be accepted that he was beaten in the occurrence and he had lost his tooth. The trial court has thus rightly held the appellant guilty for causing knife injury to Sola. 8. The next important question that arises for consideration is what offence is committed by the appellant. It is on record that the appellant had caused only one injury. Dr. D.R. Sharma does not say that this Injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. What he says is that the injury was is likely to cause death. In view of the statement of the Medical Officer if Sola had died the accused could be convicted under section 304 IPC and not under section 302 IPC. Since he has survived the offence that can be said to have been committed by the appellant comes under Section 308 IPC and not under section 307 IPC. Thus, the conviction of the appellant needs alteration from Section 307 IPC to 308 IPC. 9. As to the sentence, it is noticed that the occurrence had taken place some 18 years before. The appellant has already remained in prison for 22 days Keeping in view all the circumstances of the case, the ends of justice would be met if the appellant's sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by him and the sentence of fine is enhanced awarding compensation to Sole, 10. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. Vacating the conviction of the appellant under section 307 IPC, he is convicted under section 308 IPC. He is sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him and pay a fine of Rs. 10,500/- in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo one year R.I. In the so event of depositing fine by the appellant, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- shall be given as compensation to Sofa. The appellant is given four weeks time to deposit the amount of fine, failing which steps shall be taken by the trial court to take him in custody to send him to prison to serve out the sentence.Appeal partly allowed. *******