JUDGMENT 1. - The aforesaid Criminal Appeal have been filed under Section 374 Cr. PC. against the judgment dated 23.01.1985 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur, in Sessions Case No. 66/1982, State v. Sua Lal , whereby the appellant is convicted for the offence under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. He has also been convicted for offence under Section 447 IPC and sentenced for one month simple imprisonment and for offence under Section 323 IPC and sentence for 15 days simple imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that a report came to be lodged by one Smt. Dhapu at Police Station, Sawai Madhopur on 01.02.1982 at about 3.00 P.M. when she was cutting grass in her agricultural field. The accused appellant came to her and talked about the growth of wheat standing in the field and then pushed her, as a result of which she fell down. Thereafter, it is said that the accused appellant had sat on the informant and snatched away her gold ear rings, Murki and a Tabiz. It has been further stated by the informant that he had narrated the story to her son Chhitar, PW7. 3. On the aforesaid report, a case was registered against the accused appellant for offences under sections 307, 447, 394, 397 and 323 IPC. During the course of investigation, the appellant was arrested. On the conclusion of investigation, the police filed challan in the Court of learned Magistrate, who, thereafter, committed the case to the Court of Sessions on 07.06.1982. The learned Sessions Judge, framed the charge against the accused appellant which the accused denied and claimed to be tried. In support of its case, the prosecution had examined as many as eleven witnesses. After the statement of accused appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. one defence witness namely; Nathu Lal DW1 was examined. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Court held that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellant for the offences under Sections 394 and 397 IPC. However, the trial Court convicted the appellant for offences under Sections 307, 323 and 447 IPC respectively. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Court held that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellant for the offences under Sections 394 and 397 IPC. However, the trial Court convicted the appellant for offences under Sections 307, 323 and 447 IPC respectively. Being aggrieved of the impugned judgment passed by the Court of Sessions, the appellant has filed this appeal. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant has raised various contentions so as to show that the prosecution has totally failed to prove the case against the accused, as such, the impugned judgment passed by the Court-below is illegal and deserves to be quashed and set-aside. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the first information report itself, is doubtful. He has also submitted that the witnesses named in the report namely; Ram Prasad, who was the most important witness, has been withheld and has not been produced before the trial Court. He has also submitted that the informant has made drastic improvements in her version and there is no mention in the FIR about any injury having been caused but later on in her statement before the trial Court, she has alleged that injury on her neck was caused by knife. She has also stated before the Court that she had narrated the story to the wife of Chhitar also. 5. Another contention raised by the Learned Counsel for the appellant is that the prosecution has failed to prove the place of occurrence. Accordingly to him, the prosecution has rather changed the place of occurrence, meaning thereby the genesis of the offence has been changed by the prosecution. He has also invited my attention to the site plan so as to submit that though the informant Dhapu says that the occurrence has taken place in the field of the one Gordhan but in the site plan there is no field of Gordhan. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment and stated that the offences alleged have been well proved by the prosecution after leading evidence before the trial. Court. He has further submitted that the accused appellant had caused injury to the informant, a lady, who was working in her field, with the object to steal away her ornaments by giving threat and causing injury. 7. Court. He has further submitted that the accused appellant had caused injury to the informant, a lady, who was working in her field, with the object to steal away her ornaments by giving threat and causing injury. 7. I have considered the rival submissions made by the parties, in this case, the injured person is Smt. Dhapu and her injury report was prepared by the Medical Trust namely; Dr. K.L. Gupta, which is on record as Exhibit-PL In ail, the informant had received three injuries. Out of which injury No. 1 is grievous in nature and injuries Nos. 2 as also 3 are simple in nature and caused by blunt weapon. It is note worthy that so far as the aforesaid grievous injury is concerned, there is no fracture, as per the X-Ray Report. 8. In this light, 1 have also perused the statements of the Medical Jurist, Dr. K.L. Gupta, who had been examined as PWI. The said witness has stated before the Court that injury No. l was grievous in nature and caused by sharp edged weapon. However, he has further stated that injury No. l "May cause death, if not properly treated in time". In his cross-examination he has stated that injury No. 1 was grievous in nature "it may cause death". He also stated that "Looking to injury No. 1. I cannot say the exact width of the weapon used for injury No. I, a stab wound can be caused only by penetration". Therefore, so far as injury No. l is concerned, that it is grievous in nature, has not been established on record. Moreover, there is no opinion of the medical jurist to the effect that the said injury was. sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. Therefore, the offence with regard to attempt to murder cannot be made out. In my view, in the earlier judgments of this Court in the case of Bhiyan Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 1980 Cri.L.R. (Raj.) 688 and Munna v. State of Rajasthan, 1984 Cri.LR. 529 , it has been held that any other opinion like the one, given by the Medical Jurist, Dr. K.L. Gupta. PW1 in the instant case or the opinion given "Dangerous to life" is not sufficient so as to hold the offence under Section 307 IPC to have been proved. 9. 529 , it has been held that any other opinion like the one, given by the Medical Jurist, Dr. K.L. Gupta. PW1 in the instant case or the opinion given "Dangerous to life" is not sufficient so as to hold the offence under Section 307 IPC to have been proved. 9. Therefore, from the evidence on record including the statement of the injured, the injury report and the statement of the Medical Jurist, the prosecution has succeeded in proving the injuries of the informant having been caused by the accused but it has failed to prove the offence of attempt to murder. Resultantly, the offence committed by the appellant does not fall under Section 307 IPC but under Section 324 IPC. 10. The question, which remains for consideration is with regard to sentence to the accused appellant for having committed the offence under Section 324 IPC and the other offence under which the appellant has been convicted. In view of the fact that the incident had taken place in the year 1982 and taking into consideration the over all facts and circumstances of the case as well as the fact that the appellant has remained in custody for quite some time. I deem it just and proper that the ends of justice would meet if the sentence to the accused appellant is awarded for the period already undergone by him. 11. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction passed in the impugned judgment by learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur is altered from offence under Section 307 IPC to the one under Section 324 IPC and in respect of other offences mentioned above, is maintained. The sentence awarded to the accused appellant is modified as indicated above.Appeal Partly allowed. *******