JUDGMENT R. K. PATRA, J. — The petitioner stands convicted under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I.. for two years. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.6.1996 while Bansidhar Nayak (P.W.2) was returning to his house after worship¬ing the deity “Gateswar Devi”, on the way near the “Simili tree” the petitioner came from his back side and assaulted at the back of his head with a bhujali. On account of such assault, he sus¬tained bleeding injuries and ran towards his shop and fell down. On Gandharba (P.W.3) and Sanatan (P.W.5), who witnessed the incident carried P.W.2 to the hospital and sent information to his brother (P.W.1), who lodged F.I.R. P.W.2 was taken to Unit-VI hospital, Bhubaneswar where he was treated for about a week. After completion of investigation, the petitioner was placed on trial in the Court of the C.J.M.-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge, Khurda to face charge under Section 307 I.P.C. The learned trial Judge on the basis of evidence available on record found the petitioner guilty under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I.. for five years. Against the said conviction and sentence, appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 7/7 of 1999/98) was preferred and the learned Second Addl.Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar while confirming the conviction under Section 307 I.P.C. reduced the sentence to two years. 3. P.W. 2 is the injured. P.W.7 is the Surgery Specialist of Capital Hospital. On 17.6.1996 he examined him (injured) and found the following injuries on his person : “i) On incised wound 3” x 1/2" x 1" depth extending from centre of back of neck to right tragus of ear bisecting injury pina of right ear and there was profuse bleeding. The injury might have caused by sharp cutting weapon and within 24 hours and grievous in nature.” Ext. 8 is his report. 4. I have gone through the evidence of P.W.2. In his evidence he has clearly stated that the petitioner, who is his neighbour assaulted him with a bhujali on the right side of his head near ear. 5. Shri Sarangi contends that there has been long drawn litigation between the parties and the petitioner has been false¬ly implicated. I do not find any basis for false implication. It is well known that enmity is a double edged weapon and can be utilised either way. There is no doubt that P.W.2 had sustained the injuries aforesaid. 5. Shri Sarangi contends that there has been long drawn litigation between the parties and the petitioner has been false¬ly implicated. I do not find any basis for false implication. It is well known that enmity is a double edged weapon and can be utilised either way. There is no doubt that P.W.2 had sustained the injuries aforesaid. The question is whether the petitioner was the author of the crime. On going through the evidence of P.W.2 and his brother (P.W.1), I have no doubt in mind that the petitioner assaulted P.W.2 with the bhujali on account of which he sustained injuries. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that this is not a case under Section 307 I.P.C., but would come under Section 326 I.P.C. I, accordingly, modify the conviction to one under Section 326 I.P.C. and sentence the peti¬tioner to undergo R.I. for one year. With the above modification of conviction and sentence, the revision is dismissed. Revision dismissed.