( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the accused/appellant. It arises out of judgment dated 29-4-1994 passed by learned Fourth additional Sessions Judge, Dhar in Sessions trial No. 399/92 whereby the accused/appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 307 of the Penal Code for 4 years RI. ( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant drew my attention to the statement of complainant P. W. 2 Arun Kumar wherein he has stated that at the relevant time when the accused discourteously talked to him he agitatingly impressed upon him that he should behave properly whereon the accused from his Thela took Darata and hit him over the left side of his ribs. The learned counsel further drew my attention to the statement of P. W. 8 Dr. Verma who has proved that at the relevant time on the concerned ribs of complainant's body there was injury and he referred the complainant for x-ray examination and also found that there was on the left hand an abrasion and on the left ring finger another abrasion. The learned counsel submitted that as per the statement of Dr. Verma these two abrasions were simple and as per the statement of Dr. Pradeep Jain who conducted radiological examination of the complainant, in his opinion the injury on the ribs of the complainant was endangering life if would not have been attended. The learned counsel also submitted that as per the statement of the complainant himself sustaining the injury on the ribs, he fell down and, therefore, the above two simple abrasions must have been caused to complainant when he had fallen down. ( 3 ) LOOKING to the nature of the above evidence it appears that the learned Court below was not right in holding accused/appellant guilty under section 307 and sentencing him thereunder. This is a case of section 325, IPC in view of the definition of the "grievous hurt" as given under Section 320 eighthly. Penal Code. ( 4 ) IN view of the above the conviction of the accused/appellant under Section 307, ipc is set-aside and his sentence thereunder is also set-aside. Instead he is held guilty under Section 325 Penal Code. As per the record there is no allegation of previous conviction against the appellant. He was around 17 years of age at the time of the offence. Instead he is held guilty under Section 325 Penal Code. As per the record there is no allegation of previous conviction against the appellant. He was around 17 years of age at the time of the offence. Therefore, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, it is further directed that instead of immediately sentencing the accused /appellant under Section 325, IPC it is directed that if he furnishes security to the extent of Rs. 15,000,00/- (Fifteen thousand rupees) for good behaviour under the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of offenders Act for a period of 2 years within 2 weeks before the learned trial Court, he be released on probation of good conduct. ( 5 ) THIS appeal stands partly allowed to the above extent. Accordingly disposed of. Order accordingly. .