JUDGMENT 1. The appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.1.1997 passed by the Sessions Judge, Betul in Sessions Trial No. 98/95 convicting the appellant under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for three years, RI with fine of Rs.1,00/-, in default for further six months, RI has preferred this appeal under section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code. 2. As per case of the prosecution on 24.4.1995 at about 8:30 in the night Chaman Lal son of Kartik Ram was going to market. On the way the appellant abused him by asking where he is going. But without taking notice of it he went to the market. After some time while he was returning from the market he was stopped by the appellant by using abuses with filthy language. He informed to his father Kartikram about this incident. On such infomration the victim Kartikram went to the appellant and asked him the reason for such incident on which the appellant became angry and took him away with him at some distance and gave him a blow of knife in his abdomen. Thereafter the appellant ran away from the spot. The incident was mentioned to the Jailer, the authority of the appellant. The victim was taken to hospital. On coming the Police to the hospital a Dehati Nalisi was written, on which the offence was registered at Police Station Begul. On holding investigation the appellant was charge-sheeted under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. On committing Sessions Court, the charge under the aforesaid section was framed against the appellant. On denying the same in order to prove the case prosecution has examined as many as eleven witnesses while no-one was examined on behalf of the appellant in his defence. On appreciation of the evidence the appellant was held guilty under section 307 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced, as said above. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted his limited submission. His first submission was that the injuries sustained by the victim were not sufficient to cause his death in ordinary course of nature. He referred the deposition of Dr. Ramesh Badaw (PW 3) and said that according to it no vital organ of victim was injured. So, merely on account of opinion of a doctor such injury could not be treated as sufficient for causing the death. He referred the deposition of Dr. Ramesh Badaw (PW 3) and said that according to it no vital organ of victim was injured. So, merely on account of opinion of a doctor such injury could not be treated as sufficient for causing the death. According to him the offence was covered only under section 324 instead of section 307 of Indian Penal Code and prayed for conversion of the same. In the same sequence he said on conversion the same the offence under section 324 of Indian Penal Code is compoundable with permission of the Court, for which the parties have filed an application under section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The same is pending for adjudication subject to findings of the Court in this regard and prayed for such permission just to maintain harmony between the parties. In alternate it was also submitted that in case the conviction of the appellant is maintained, then his jail sentence be reduced in view of the aforesaid circumstances upto the period for which he was remained in judicial custody and after the impugned judgment, till passing the order for suspension of jail sentence and prayed for allowing his appeal accordingly. 5. Counsel for the State has justified the impugned judgment as well as the conviction and sentence of the appellant and submitted that no interference is called for in it even for changing the section for consideration of compromise or for reducing the jail sentence and prayed for dismissal of this appeal. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, on perusing the record, it appears from the depositions of the Dr. Ramesh Badawe (PW 3) that the victim Kartik Ram Patel (PW 2) has sustained one stabbed wound on right side of his chest in interior auxiliary line, vertically placed size of injury was 2.5 c.m. x 1 c.m. The x-ray was also advised. The same was taken but it was not proved by examining the concerning doctor, although said doctor has opined about the injury that if it was not treated within time, the same could have caused death of the victim but in support of this opinion no reliable reasons have been stated by him. therefore, by holding this injury as dangerous or grievous in nature, the appellant is found guilty only under section 324 instead section 307 of Indian Penal Code. therefore, by holding this injury as dangerous or grievous in nature, the appellant is found guilty only under section 324 instead section 307 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, it is held that the trial Court has committed grave error in holding the appellant guilty under section 307 of Indian Penal Code. 7. On going through the other evidence on the record I am of the considered view that the trial Court has not committed any error in holding guilty the appellant for such offence. So other findings of the trial Court are hereby affirmed. In view of the aforesaid discussion the appellant is acquitted from the charge under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code instead he is held guilty under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. At this stage to maintain the harmony between the parties the IA No. 2564/06, an application for permission to compound the offence in view of order passed in the order sheet is considered. The same is found genuine, bona fide and voluntarily. Hence, it is allowed. The parties are permitted to compound the offence under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. In pursuant of it, the IA No. 2566/06, the application for compromise after verification is allowed. 9. In view of the compromise of the parties, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court against the appellant is hereby quashed and set aside. As per provision of section 320 of Criminal Procedure Code, this compromise shall be treated as acquittal of the appellant. The fine amount, if deposited by the appellant, the same be refunded to him. The appeal is allowed, as indicated above.