ORDER Challenging the judgment dt.14-08-2002 in Criminal Appeal No.181 of 2000 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool, whereunder and whereby the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence recorded in the judgment dated 03-07-2000 in C.C.No.48 of 1999 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of Fist Class, Nandkotkur, the present revision is filed. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the revision case are as follows: On 22-03-1999 at about 10.00 p.m. while Soya Chinna Madduleti (P.W.1) was taking rest in front of his house and asked the accused, who was standing in front of his house, about taking away of fodder from his hayrick yard without his knowledge and a verbal altercation took place between them in this regard. On that the accused suddenly picked up a big stone and beat the said Madduleti thrice on his right said of head causing severe bleeding injury and again beat with the same stone on his back causing contusion. Hence, the charge. 3. The trial Court, on consideration of evidence on record, found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 326 I.P.C., accordingly convicted and-sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. On appeal, the appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence. Hence, the revision. 4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that except the interested testimony of P.W.1, who had ill-feelings with the accused, there is no other evidence to corroborate his evidence; that possibility of P.W.1 sustaining the injuries by fall can not be ruled out; that necessary ingredients for the offence punishable under Section 326 I. P .C. have not been established. He further contended that even assuming for the sake of arguments that the case of prosecution is true, it would attract the offence punishable under Section 334 I.P.C.; Hence, he prayed to allow the revision. 5. The learned counsel representing the public Prosecutor opposed the same on the ground that the concurrent findings of the two Courts below need not be interfered with, in view of the fact that they are not illegal or improper. 6. 5. The learned counsel representing the public Prosecutor opposed the same on the ground that the concurrent findings of the two Courts below need not be interfered with, in view of the fact that they are not illegal or improper. 6. The essential ingredients to constitute an offence punishable under Section 326 I.P.C. are as follows: (a) A person voluntarily causes grievous hurt; (b) He does so by means of- (i) instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or, (ii) instrument likely to cause death if used as a weapon of offence, or (iii) five or any heated substance, or (iv) any poison or corrosive substance, or (v) any explosive substance, or (vi) substance which is deleterious to human body to inhale, swallow or receive into blood, or (vii) animal (viii) the case must not fall within Section 335. 7. There is no dispute about the above proposition with regard to the ingredients to be proved by the prosecution. If the evidence of solitary witness is found to be true and trustworthy, the same can be acted upon and conviction can be maintained. If the evidence of solitary witness is found to be partly reliable and partly unreliable, then only it requires corroboration. P.W.1 is no other than paternal uncle of the accused. Even according to P.W.1, while he was lying on the bed at his house, he had a dialogue with the accused regarding taking of fodder from his hayrick yard without his knowledge and then some altercation took place in between them and suddenly the accused picked up big stone and beat him thrice over the right side of his head causing bleeding injuries. It is his further evidence that he rushed to a private doctor, took treatment for the injuries and on the next day morning, he reported the matter to police, who took him to Government Hospital. P.W.6 is the Radiologist, who conducted examination on P.W.1 and basing on the same, he opined as in Ex.P-5 that there is a fracture of parietal bone and frontal bone on right side. His evidence and the recitals in Ex.P-5 remained unchallenged. P.W.6 is the Radiologist, who conducted examination on P.W.1 and basing on the same, he opined as in Ex.P-5 that there is a fracture of parietal bone and frontal bone on right side. His evidence and the recitals in Ex.P-5 remained unchallenged. P.W.7 is the Doctor who examined P.W.1 and found i) a lacerated injury over upper part of right temporal region 5.5 cm above right ear measuring 2.5 cm x 1 cm skin deep; ii) lacerated injury over right temple 1.5 x 0.5 cm skin deep bleeding present; and iii) lacerated injury over frontal region on right side 1 cm x 0.5 cm skin deep. He opined that the injuries are grievous in nature. There cannot be any dispute that an injury within the meaning of 320 I.P.C. is grievous. From the aforesaid injuries, it is clear that P.W.1 sustained grievous injuries. No doubt, P.W.7 opined that there is a possibility of sustaining lacerated injury by fall on rough surface. But, it is not the case of the accused that P.W.1 sustained the injuries at some other place in some other manner. Since the accused is closely related to P.W.1, question of false implication does not arise. 8. Now, it has to be seen whether the accused committed the said offence voluntarily or under grave and sudden provocation. There can not be any dispute that if the complainant provoked the accused and in that provocation the accused caused the hurt, he is liable for punishment under Section 334 I.P.C. and if it is grievous hurt, he is liable for punishment under Section 335 I.P.C. It is in the evidence of P.W.1 that he had a dialogue with the accused regarding taking of fodder from his hayrick yard without his knowledge. Therefore it is clear that the accused did not voluntarily cause the hurt and that on the provocation made by P.W.1, the incident arose. As rightly contended by the learned counsel, the offence squarely falls under Section 335 I.P.C. Since the offence punishable under Section 335 I.P.C. is minor offence when compared to the offence punishable under Section 326 I.P.C., altering the conviction would not cause any prejudice to the accused. Accordingly, the conviction of the revision petitioner/accused is modified and he is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 335 I.P.C., accordingly convicted thereunder. 9. Accordingly, the conviction of the revision petitioner/accused is modified and he is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 335 I.P.C., accordingly convicted thereunder. 9. Regarding sentence, the trial Court sentenced rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. P.W.1 is no other than paternal uncle of the accused. The accused is a young man aged about 25 years at the time of incident. It is not a pre-planned attack. On the provocation by the complainant and in a spur of moment, the accused beat the complainant. Considering all these aspects and the relationship, a lenient vie can be taken with regard to sentence of imprisonment. Therefore, the sentence of imprisonment of one year is modified as the period of sentence already undergone by the accused while enhancing the fine to Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Out of the said fine, a sum of Rs. 3,000/- shall be paid to the complainant/ P.W.1. 10. With the above observation, the revision case is partly allowed.