JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. : The judgment dated 21.1.1989 passed by the Sessions Judge, Phulbani, Camp-G. Udayagiri, convicting the appellant u/s. 324 IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for two years in S.C. No.8 of 1989 is assailed in this appeal. 2. On the basis of an F.I.R. filed by P.W.7, the criminal action was set in motion and G.R. Case No. 69 of 1988 was regis¬tered against the accused persons for commission of offences u/ss. 451/307 IPC. The F.I.R. story reveals that while P.W.7 was taking his meals in his house at Sarakhole, the accused went there and knocked his door. The informant- P.W.7 allowed him to get in. It is alleged that in the room Tilottama Digal, P.W.2 to whom accused had divorced, was there. Accused wanted to talk to her. The informant allowed him to talk to his ex-wife (P.W.2) and went to take his meal. After some time accused asked him to convince P.W.2 to go with him to which the P.W.7 answered that he would talk to his P.W.2 and take her with him if she would like. Being enraged by such statement, accused picked up an axe kept in a corner of the house and gave blow with that on his head. At that time Tilotama, P.W.2 went outside and shouted. Hearing her hullah, P.W.3 Dwitikrishna Padhi, Bhaskar Misra and Biswambar Digal came to the spot and caught hold of the accused. During investigation of the case, the I.O. visited the spot, seized blood stained axe-M.O.I and other materials. The accused pleaded not guilty. 3. Prosecution examined seven witnesses to establish its case. P.W.1, the doctor who had examined the informant on police requisition and submitted the injury report, Ext. 1. P.W.2 Tilo¬tama is the ex-wife of the accused. P.W.3 Dwitikrishna Padhi is an independent witness. P.W.4 is Bijaya Kumar Behera, another independent witness-to the occurrence. P.W.5 is Nilomani Rautray, S.I. of G. Udayagiri P.S. who registered the P.S. Case No. 41/88 and drew up the formal FIR. P.W.7 is the informant. 4. After discussing the evidence in extenso, the Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the accused out of a sudden provocation gave the blow. He had not brought the axe with him and as such the charge u/s. 451 IPC cannot be sustained. 5. P.W.7 is the informant. 4. After discussing the evidence in extenso, the Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the accused out of a sudden provocation gave the blow. He had not brought the axe with him and as such the charge u/s. 451 IPC cannot be sustained. 5. The Sessions Judge has further came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the basic ingredients re¬quired for a conviction u/s.307 IPC and instead convicted the accused u/s.324 IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for two years. The said order of conviction is assailed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Pe¬rused the evidence once again. Admittedly the ex-wife of the accused was not staying with the informant. On the date of occur¬rence the accused came to informant and knocked the door. He was not armed. He tried to convince his ex-wife to go with him. When he failed, he wanted the informant to convince her. The informant on the other hand refused to do so. Being enraged by such action, it appears, the accused picked up an axe which was lying on the ground and gave one blow with that on P.W.7 causing injury. The evidence of the doctor-P.W.1 reveals that the injury was a simple one. Doctor further stated that the same could be possible if a person fell on a sharp cutting weapon. Surprisingly the prosecu¬tion neither showed the weapon, i.e., axe nor put any question to P.W.7 as to whether the injury could have been caused by the said axe. Apart from Tilotama-P.W.2, all other witnesses were post-occurrence witnesses. They have not seen the assault after hear¬ing hullah of Tilotama, they all came to the spot. That apart P. Ws. 2 to 4 have turned hostile and did not support the prosecu¬tion case. 7. However, fact remains Tilotama-P.W.2 has supported the prosecution case. According to her the accused picked up the axe lying on the ground and gave a blow. As would be evident from the evidence of the doctor-P.W.1 the injury was a simple one. 8. 2 to 4 have turned hostile and did not support the prosecu¬tion case. 7. However, fact remains Tilotama-P.W.2 has supported the prosecution case. According to her the accused picked up the axe lying on the ground and gave a blow. As would be evident from the evidence of the doctor-P.W.1 the injury was a simple one. 8. Considering the facts and the fact that the incident occurred in the year 1988; 19 years have passed in the meanwhile, the accused have undergone imprisonment for a period of one month and eight days and also the fact that though the appeal was filed in time, it could not be disposed of till now, that too not for the laches of the appellant, this Court feels that the conviction should be converted to one u/s. 323 IPC and the sentence of imprisonment should be reduced to the period already undergone and besides accused-appellant shall be liable to a fine of Rs.3,000/-. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court disposes of the Criminal Appeal modifying the conviction of the appellant under section 324 IPC to one under section 323 and sentencing him to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000.00, in default to undergo R.I. for one month. If the fine is paid, out of that a sum of Rs.2,000.00 shall be paid by the trial court to informant-P.W.7. Order accordingly.