JUDGMENT Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. - This appeal has been preferred by the State of Punjab against altering of conviction of the respondents to Section 324 Indian Penal Code from the charge of Section 307 Indian Penal Code. 2. The respondents alongwith three others (since acquitted) were proceeded against, inter alia, under section 307 Indian Penal Code. Case of the prosecution is that on 14.9.1998, at 5.30 P.M., Santokh Singh, PW-4 was going from his house to the cattle shed in the company of his brothers Gian Singh, PW-3 and Gurmukh Singh, PW-5 and near the shop of Kewal Krishan, accused Nichhattar Kumar armed with gandasi, Ram Lubhaya armed with iron rod, Santosh Kumar armed with iron rod alongwith the acquitted accused (empty-handed) came from opposite side. Ram Lubhaya raised lalkara that Santokh Singh be caught hold of and finished as his father Mohan Singh always talks ill of them in the Gram Panchayat. Nichhatar Kumar inflicted gandasi blow on the left side of the head of Santokh Singh. Ram Lubhaya inflicted iron rod blow on the chest of Santokh Singh. Santosh Kumar gave two iron rod blows on his shoulder and on the back. Gian Singh and Gurmukh Singh raised alarm and intervened. Ram Lubhaya inflicted iron rod blow on the left cheek of Gian Singh. Nichhatar Kumar gave gandasi blow from blunt side to Gian Singh. Hussan Lal, Mukhtiar Singh and Pappu caught hold of Gurmukh Singh and gave fist blow. Thereafter, accused ran away with their weapons. Injured were taken to the hospital and were medically examined. Case was registered on the statement of Gian Singh and after investigation, accused were challaned. Charges were framed against them but they pleaded not guilty. 3. Prosecution examined Dr. Tarsem Singh Bhatti, Registrar, Pathology Department, Government Medical College, Patiala PW-1, Gian Singh, PW-3, Santokh Singh, PW-4, Gurmukh Singh, PW-5 and Swaran Singh, PW-7 apart from other evidence. 4. The trial Court gave benefit of doubt to Hussan Lal, Surinder Kumar and Mukhtiar Singh, inter alia, on the ground that they were not named in the FIR and no injury was attributed to them. Nichhatar Kumar, Ram Lubhaya and Santosh Kumar were convicted. Nichhatar Kumar was convicted under section 324 Indian Penal Code and Ram Lubhaya and Santosh Kumar under Section 324/34 Indian Penal Code. They were released on probation. Hence this appeal. 5. Nichhatar Kumar, Ram Lubhaya and Santosh Kumar were convicted. Nichhatar Kumar was convicted under section 324 Indian Penal Code and Ram Lubhaya and Santosh Kumar under Section 324/34 Indian Penal Code. They were released on probation. Hence this appeal. 5. Main question to be considered is whether the trial court is justified in holding that the offence will not be covered by Section 307 or 326 Indian Penal Code. The injuries to Santokh Singh as mentioned in the medico-legal report, Ex.PA and statement of PW-1 Dr. Tarsem Singh Bhatti, are as under :- "1. Incised wound 5 cms x 1/2 cm on the left parietal region of head which was 9 cms above the pinna of left ear. Margin was incised and sharply cut, edges were everted underlying bone was cut, fresh bleeding from the wound was there. X-ray was advised. 2. Contusion injury on the back of right scapular region which was 6x2 cms. in size. 3. Abrasions of variable in size i.e. 3 cms. x 1 cm on the front of chest. 4. Abrasion on the upper part of shoulder." Injury No. 1 was grievous in nature and kept under observation. Injuries No. 2, 3 and 4 were simple in nature, Injury No. 1 was caused with a sharp edged weapon, 2, 3 and 4 caused by blunt weapon. Probable duration of injuries was within two hours." (Underlining supplied). 6. The trial court in para 20 of its judgment observed :- "As regards the other accused particularly Nichhatar Kumar, who has been charged under section 307 Indian Penal Code, in the bed head ticket, it was no where on the person of Santokh Singh, could be dangerous to life. Opinion in this regard was given by the doctor only on 26.9.1988. That too on the application Ex.PJ moved by the police. In case injury was dangerous to life, the doctor should have mentioned the same in the bed head ticket. So much so injuries on the person of Santokh Singh, cannot be termed as grievous in nature. The doctor had not mentioned the depth of the cut, effect of the same would be that the case would not cover under section 326 Indian Penal Code and in this regard, reliance is placed on Jagir Singh v. Mohinder Singh and another, 1986 Criminal Law Times 293. The doctor had not mentioned the depth of the cut, effect of the same would be that the case would not cover under section 326 Indian Penal Code and in this regard, reliance is placed on Jagir Singh v. Mohinder Singh and another, 1986 Criminal Law Times 293. My attention was also drawn to Balwant Singh and others v. State of Punjab 1978 Criminal Law Times 376, Sita Ram v. The State of Haryana, 1984 Criminal Law Times 137 and Kailash Prasad Kanodia and another v. State of Bihar, 1980 Criminal Law Times 190. In Kailash Prasad as stated (supra) medical evidence discloses no serious injury on any vital part and the doctor admitted the absence of fracture of serious nature. Therefore, conviction under section 326 Indian Penal Code was altered to one under Section 324 Indian Penal Code. Thus considering the medical evidence as well as having regard to the ocular evidence referred to above, it is a case where provision of section 324 Indian Penal Code would be attracted and the case is not covered under section 307 Indian Penal Code. There are three injured in this case. The presence of Gian Singh and Gurmukh Singh is established on record as they had also received injuries at the hands of the accused at the time of saving Santokh Singh. In the result, Hussan Lal, Surinder Kumar and Mukhtiar Singh accused are acquitted of the offences, charged with. Nichhattar Kumar, accused is held guilty under section 324 Indian Penal Code. Ram Lubhaya and Santosh Kumar are held guilty under section 324 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code for causing injuries to Santokh Singh. Nichhatar Kumar, Ram Lubhaya and Santosh Kumar are held guilty under section 323 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code for causing injuries to Santokh Singh, Gian Singh and Gurmukh Singh. Let the accused be heard on the question of sentence." 7. Learned counsel for the State submitted that injury No. 1 was rightly opined to be grievous in nature and the learned trial Court erred in holding that since in the bed head ticket of the injured, the doctor did not mention the injury to be dangerous to life and since depth of the cut had not been mentioned, Section 326 Indian Penal Code will not be attracted. None appeared for the respondents. 8. We have considered submissions made on behalf of the State. None appeared for the respondents. 8. We have considered submissions made on behalf of the State. 9. We are of the view that the offence clearly fell under section 326 Indian Penal Code as it is covered by clause "seventhly" of Section 320 Indian Penal Code i.e. "fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth." 10. We have perused the decisions referred to in the judgment of the trial Court. In Jagir Singh (supra), it was held by a learned Single Judge of this court that since description of the cut was not mentioned, question whether the injury was only superficial or it effect a break in bones, could not be examined. Judge of the Apex Court in Hori Lal and another v. The State of UP, AIR 1970 Supreme Court 1969 was distinguished. In Balwant Singh and Sita Rams cases (supra) also, same view was taken by the same learned Single Judge. In Kailash Parsad (supra) AIR 1980 Supreme Court 106, the Apex Court held that where doctor did not find any fracture of serious nature and did not find any serious injury on any vital part, offence under section 326 was not made out. 11. In our view, the decisions relied upon by the learned trial court are distinguishable. In Hori Lal (supra), the Apex Court observed as under :- "In Mutukdhar Singh v. Emperor, AIR 1942 Patna 376, it was observed that if the evidence is merely that a bone has been cut and there is nothing whatever to indicate the extent of the cut, whether a deep one or a mere scratch on the surface of the bone, it will be difficult to infer that the injury is a grievous hurt within the meaning of section 320 of the Penal Code. In our view, both these assumptions are misleading. It is not necessary that a bone should be cut through and through or that the crack must extend from the outer to the inner surface or that there should be displacement of any fragment of the bone. If there is a break by cutting or splintering of the bone or there is a rupture or fissure in it would amount to a fracture within the meaning of Clause 7 of Section 320. If there is a break by cutting or splintering of the bone or there is a rupture or fissure in it would amount to a fracture within the meaning of Clause 7 of Section 320. What we have to see is whether the cuts in the bones noticed in the injury report are only superficial or do they effect a break in them. The nature of the injuries as spoken to by the doctor in his evidence, discloses the length, breadth and depth of each injury. So, far as the depth of the injuries Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 is concerned, each one of the injuries shows that it is bone deep and they are described as cutting the underlying bone. In injury 3 left humerus, in injury 4 radius, in injury 5 both the bones of the left forearm and in injury 6 the tibia bone shaft have been cut which would show that they are fractures. Apart from this, the doctor as noticed earlier has in his evidence said that these injuries are grievous. It is contended that the doctor has not disclosed the reason why he thinks that the injuries were grievous. But in our view the doctor would not be unaware of what injuries considered with the evidence of the doctor would undoubtedly establish that all the aforesaid injuries were grievous. These injuries were inflicted by kantas which are dangerous weapons and hence the conviction under Section 326 is fully justified." 12. In present case, injury is on the head with a gandasi and underlying bone was cut. It is not possible to hold that merely because the extent of cut is not mentioned, offence will not fall under section 326 Indian Penal Code. As observed by the Apex Court, the question to be considered is whether cut in the bone is only superficial or it effects a break i.e. rupture or fissure. It is not necessary that bone should be cut through and through or the crack must extend from outer to the inner surface or there should be displacement of any fragment of the bone except where cut in the bone is superficial. Cut in bone effecting a break therein will amount to fracture and will be covered by clause 7 of Section 320 Indian Penal Code. 13. Cut in bone effecting a break therein will amount to fracture and will be covered by clause 7 of Section 320 Indian Penal Code. 13. For the above reasons, we allow this appeal and convert conviction of respondent No. 1 Nichhattar Kumar to Section 326 Indian Penal Code and conviction of respondents Ram Lubhaya and Santosh Kumar to Section 326/34 Indian Penal Code. 14. We also heard learned counsel for the State of the question of sentence. Having regard to the age of the respondents at the time of commission of offence and lapse of time since the occurrence, we are of the view that ends of justice will be met if the respondents are sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year. The respondents are sentenced accordingly. They will surrender to undergo the sentence. Appeal allowed.