JUDGMENT : A.K. Parichha, J. - This is an appeal against the order of conviction of the Appellant recorded by Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Titilagarh in Sessions Case No. 29/8 of 1989. The accused-Appellant was tried for offences u/s s. 307, 326 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that in the month of Bhadrav, 1988 one after-noon at about 5 P.M. he attempted to cause death of one Jagabandhu Bag by dealing an axe blow on his chest, when the said Jagabandhu was standing on the village road. The plea of the accused-Appellant was one of denial and false implication. The Appellant also made a counter allegation that Jagabandhu out-raged the modesty of his wife and caused injuries to her and because that matter was reported to the police authorities, Jagabandhu created the above noted false allegation against him. During trial seven witnesses were examined and documents Exts. 1 to 6 were produced by the prosecution. In defence, the Appellant examined one witness and produced documents Exts. A to E. On considering all those evidences, Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Titilagarh found the Appellant guilty of offence u/s 324, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year. The said order of conviction and sentence is under challenge in this appeal. 2. Mr. M.M. Sahu, Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the prosecution evidence was not enough to establish the guilt of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt. According to him, Learned Trial Court did not appreciate the prosecution evidence and the defence plea properly and in the result arrived at a wrong conclusion. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of the State on the other hand argues that the evidence of the eye witnesses were clinching in nature and were fully supported by medical evidence and so Learned Trial Court committed no error in holding the Appellant guilty u/s 324, Indian Penal Code. He also indicates that the Learned Trial Judge has assigned reason as to why the defence plea and evidence were improper and unacceptable. In short, Learned Addl. Standing Counsel strongly supports the impugned Judgment. 3. Injured Jagabandhu is P.W. 2. He also indicates that the Learned Trial Judge has assigned reason as to why the defence plea and evidence were improper and unacceptable. In short, Learned Addl. Standing Counsel strongly supports the impugned Judgment. 3. Injured Jagabandhu is P.W. 2. He stated that on the date of occurrence when he was standing on the village road the accused came there holding an axe and quarreled with him on the issue of re-payment of loan and during that quarrel, dealt a blow with the sharp side of the axe which caused a big incised injury on his left side chest and abdomen. P.W. 4, the father of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3, a local man, who were present near the spot at the time of occurrence fully supported the statement of P.W. 2. The then doctor of Kantabanji Govt. Hospital, P.W. 1, who attended P.W. 2 soon after the occurrence and sent report Ext. 1 to the OIC, Kantabanji Police Station also clearly stated that he found one bleeding incised wound of measuring 21/2"x1"x1/2 obliquely placed on left side chest of P.W. 2, and that the said injury was probably caused by a heavy sharp cutting weapon like axe. The doctor also opined that the injury was serious in nature and if immediate treatment would not have been imparted then there was possibility of death. This statement of the doctor, his report Ext. 2, report along with the connected medical papers clearly reveal that P.W. 2 was treated for the above said injury as indoor patient in Kantabanji Govt. Hospital for 15 days. The evidence of the above named witnesses, the medical reports, FIR lodged by P.W. 2 were not discredited in any way in cross-examination. The accused no doubt took a plea that P.W. 2 out raged the modesty of his wife and also caused injuries to him and his wife and in that connection produced some documents such as a report lodged in Attabira Police Station, injury requisition, injury reports, which were marked Exts. B to E, but those documents revealed that the Appellant and his wife had lodged the report in Attabira P.S. alleging that one Banka Bag of village Jhankahali assaulted them on 16.9.1988 and in that connection they were medically examined. B to E, but those documents revealed that the Appellant and his wife had lodged the report in Attabira P.S. alleging that one Banka Bag of village Jhankahali assaulted them on 16.9.1988 and in that connection they were medically examined. The Appellant also proved the filing of complaint case bearing No. 42 of 1988 in the Court of Learned S.D.J.M., Titilagarh through an Advocate Clerk, D.W.1, but that complaint case was found to have been lodged long after the occurrence of the present case. The prosecution evidence was clear and clinching to establish that the Appellant-accused inflicted incised wound on the chest of P.W. 2 on the date of occurrence and the defence evidence was totally unreliable. So the Trial Court committed no error in disbelieving the defence story and accepting the allegation of the informant. 4. Evidence of P. Ws. 2 to 4 clearly revealed that at the spur of the moment there was a quarrel between P.W. 2 and Appellant and during that quarrel the Appellant dealt an axe blow on P.W. 2. In such situation, it cannot be inferred that the Appellant had either planned to cause death to P.W. 2 or that he dealt the axe blow with the intention of causing death or that he had the knowledge that his blow might cause death. That being so, Learned trial Judge was perfectly justified in saying that the ingredients of Section 307, Indian Penal Code are wanting. Similarly, report of the doctor no doubt says that injury was serious in nature, but it does not say that the injury was grievous in nature. Moreover, X-Ray report, Ext. 3, also did not reveal clearly that there was any fracture on the ribs. That apart, the medical evidence revealed that P.W. 2 remained as Indoor patient in hospital for less than 20 days. So his injury was not one coming within the definition of "grievous hurt" and for that reason Learned trial Judge had good reason to say that the case does not also come within the ambit of Section 326, Indian Penal Code. Since the injury was inflicted with a sharp cutting weapon it was a case coming u/s 324, Indian Penal Code and rightly the Trial Court convicted the Appellant u/s 324, Indian Penal Code. 5. Since the injury was inflicted with a sharp cutting weapon it was a case coming u/s 324, Indian Penal Code and rightly the Trial Court convicted the Appellant u/s 324, Indian Penal Code. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the incident took place 18 years ago and the alleged injury was inflicted at the spur of the moment and considering these factors the sentence of one year R.I. be converted into the period of jail sentence already undergone. 6. Considering the nature of injury and the circumstances surrounding the alleged incident and also the fact that the Appellant has hardly remained in jail custody as UTP, the submission of Learned Counsel for the Appellant cannot be favoured. In the given circumstances, R.I. of one year as awarded by the Trial Court seems rather too lenient. Therefore, the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed