Judgment Jitendra Chauhan, J. 1. This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 26.4.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Faridabad (hereinafter referred as "Trial Court") whereby in case FIR No. 402 dated 29.12.1998, registered at Police Station Sadar Hathin, the accused-appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 307/324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The brief facts of the case are that : "On 29.12.1998 at about 6.30 p.m., he was going to market for buying vegetables. Accused Mahinder met him on the way. At that time PW- Shambir also came there. Accused Mahinder demanded a sum of Rs. 50/- from him. When the complainant did not pay the amount, the accused inflicted blows with scissors on the left side of his chest (left Passu). As a result of which he fell down and was thereafter taken to hospital by Shambir and Master Chander Bhan. On receipt of medical ruqa Ex.PB/1, PW-9 HC Kailash Chand went to the hospital and after obtaining opinion on his application Ex.PG of the Medical Officer, recorded statement Ex.PD of Daulat Ram. He had then sent the same to the police station Hathin on which formal FIR Ex.PP/1 was recorded by ASI Randhir Singh, HC Kailash prepared rough site plan Ex.PH of the place of occurrence. He had arrested the accused while standing on Bus Stand Hathin and in pursuance of disclosure statement Ex.PF made by him, recovered scissors vide recovery memo Ex.PF/1. Recovery memo was attested by Sanjay and Bhure Khan. He then prepared Ex.PF/2 rough sketch of the scissors and also took into possession bundle of blood stained clothes of Daulat Ram vide recovery memo Ex.PK. On 25.2.1999, he gave application Ex.PC to Dr.Sudhir Kapoor for his opinion about the nature of injuries. The opinion obtained by him is Ex.PC/1. The doctor opined that the injuries were dangerous to life and could cause death if surgical intervention had not been given in due time. On 25.2.1999, he gave application Ex.PC to Dr.Sudhir Kapoor for his opinion about the nature of injuries. The opinion obtained by him is Ex.PC/1. The doctor opined that the injuries were dangerous to life and could cause death if surgical intervention had not been given in due time. Based thereon, the offence allegedly committed by the accused was converted to Section 307 IPC". 3. The accused-appellant was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. To prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses, viz., Dr.SL Mehra as PW-1; Dr.Sudhir Kapoor as PW-2; complainant Daulat Ram as PW-3; Chander Bhan as PW-4; Shambir as PW-5; ASI Randhir Singh as PW-6; Dr.Parveen Vazo of Holy Family Hospital as PW-7; Sanjay son of the complainant as PW-8; Head Constable Kailash as PW-9; Mahinder Verma, record-keeper, Holy Family Hospital as PW-10; SI Raghbir Prashad as PW-11; ASI Randhir Singh as PW-12; Anoj Kumar, Draftsman as PW-13 and Dr.Karuna Taneja of Holy Family Hospital a PW-14. 5. PW-1-Dr.SL Mehra stated that he had radio logically examined Daulat Ram on 30.12.1998 and found that in the x-ray of abdomen, there was haziness of the whole of abdomen. 6. PW-2-Dr.Sudhir Kapoor, Medical Officer deposed that on 29.12.1998, he had medico-legally examined Daulat Ram and found the following injuries on his person : 1. Incised wound with pointed (a stab wound 1 cm x 1/2cm wide x = cm deep approx. on the left chest, 3 cm below the left nipple. Bleeding was present, advised x-ray. 2. A stab wound 1 cm x = cm x 1-1/2 cm approx. as it was present on vital organ so depth could not be measured. (On the lateral side of left chest at the distance of 5 cm from the left nipple). 3. Incised bleeding wound 1 cm x = cm wide x 1 cm deep with swelling around the wound on the left chest near the Epigistric region. It was 14 cm below the nipple. Advised x-ray also. 4. A stab wound of size 1 cm x = cm x 1-1/2 cm (approx.) on the right chest. 4 cm of the right side of injury No. 3. 5. A stab wound 1 cm x = x 1-1/2 cm deep on the lateral side of right abdomen. It was 14 cm below the nipple. Advised x-ray also. 4. A stab wound of size 1 cm x = cm x 1-1/2 cm (approx.) on the right chest. 4 cm of the right side of injury No. 3. 5. A stab wound 1 cm x = x 1-1/2 cm deep on the lateral side of right abdomen. 5 cm lateral to the umbilicus. 6. A stab wound 1 cm x = cm wide from the left abdomen. 8 cm away from umbilicus. 7. A stab wound = cm x = cm x 1 cm deep on left abdomen. 5 cm below injury No. 6." 7. PW-3-complainant Daulat Ram has re-iterated the version as given in the complaint. PW-4-Chander Bhan deposed that on 29.12.1998, at about 6.30 p.m. while coming from market, he saw Mahinder (appellant herein) running with some weapon and on reaching the spot, he found Daulat Ram lying on the ground in an injured condition. He further stated that he and Shambir took the complainant Daulat Ram to Civil Hospital, Hathin. PW-5 Shambir is the eye witness of the occurrence. He stated that on 29.12.1998, at about 6.30 p.m., he was going to the house of Daulat Ram who met him on the way near the shop of Nonand Ram. He further stated that when they both were talking, accused-appellant Mahinder came there and demanded a sum of Rs. 50/- from him who refused to give. He also stated that on this, the accused-appellant gave blows with some weapon on the left chest, left passu and abdomen of Daulat Ram who fell down. PW-5 further stated that thereafter Chander Bhan came there and took the injured Daulat Ram to Civil Hospital, Hathin. 8. PW-7-Dr. Parveen Vazo of Holy Family Hospital stated that on 31.12.1998, he had conducted x-ray of chest and abdomen of Daulat Ram and did not see "Pleuro Paren Chynal Relion and further vovel gas pattern was unremarkable." In his cross-examination, he stated that as per x-ray report, there was no serious injury on the person of injured Daulat Ram. 9. PW-8-Sanjay son of the complainant stated that on 30.12.1998, police had arrested accused-appellant Mahinder in his presence at Bus Stand, Hathin. PW-9-HC Kailash Chand is the Investigating Officer of the case. PW-10-Mahinder Verma, Record Clerk of Holy Family Hospital has given detail about the admission and treatment of injured-Daulat Ram. 9. PW-8-Sanjay son of the complainant stated that on 30.12.1998, police had arrested accused-appellant Mahinder in his presence at Bus Stand, Hathin. PW-9-HC Kailash Chand is the Investigating Officer of the case. PW-10-Mahinder Verma, Record Clerk of Holy Family Hospital has given detail about the admission and treatment of injured-Daulat Ram. PW-14-Dr.Karuna Taneja stated that on 31.12.1998, when she was working as Consultant Radiologist in Holy Family Hospital, she conducted x-ray of chest of Daulat Ram and also conducted ultra-sound of the patient. 10. Accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the allegations and in his defence, examined Mansa Ram as DW1 and Suresh as DW2. 11. DW1-Mansa Ram stated that on 29.12.1998, at about 7.00 p.m., when Daulat Ram was taking liquor in his shop/hotel, his son Sanjay who was also present there, stopped his father from taking liquor as he was a T.B.patient. On this, a quarrel arose between father and the son and then Daulat Ram had broken a glass and fell down because of a push having been given to him by his son and he received two injuries on his chest from pieces of glass lying on the floor. 12. DW2-Suresh also corroborated the version of DW1. 13. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Trial Court convicted the accused-appellant as mentioned in para 1 at the outset of this judgment. 14. Hence this appeal. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that there are material contradictions in the prosecution version. As per the statement of Dr.Sudhir Kapoor, PW-2, seven injuries were noticed on the person of complainant-Daulat Ram, whereas the complainant on oath has stated that he suffered three injuries. Dr.Parveen Kumar, PW-7, has admitted in his cross-examination that there were no serious injuries on the person of Daulat Ram. Learned counsel has further referred to the statement of Dr.S.L.Mehra, PW-1, who has admitted in his examination-in-chief that there was no fracture of chest as per the x- ray report. He has further argued that the admitted fact is that the complainant was working as a Multi Purpose Health Worker, therefore, the medical evidence cannot be said to be free from bias and is not trustworthy as it showed favoritism towards the complainant. 16. He has further argued that the admitted fact is that the complainant was working as a Multi Purpose Health Worker, therefore, the medical evidence cannot be said to be free from bias and is not trustworthy as it showed favoritism towards the complainant. 16. Learned counsel has further argued that the statement of the complainant himself is full of contradictions with regard to the distance between the place of occurrence and the hotel of his son. He has admitted the presence of his son in the hotel at the time of occurrence, and it was dark and foggy weather. The visibility had reduced upto a distance of 2-3. Whereas, Chander Bhan, PW-4, has stated that there was no fog at the time of occurrence and visibility upto ten yards. PW-5-Shambir has also stated in his cross- examination that it was not a foggy night but it was a dark night and a person could see at a distance of 10. Learned counsel has argued that it is established that the hotel of the complainants son was about 250 yards away from the place of occurrence, whereas son of the complainant has stated that his hotel was situated at about 10 yards from the place of occurrence. Therefore, learned counsel has argued that in view of the divergent description, the case of the prosecution has become doubtful. 17. Learned counsel has further referred to the statement of Chander Bhan who, in his cross-examination, has stated that while he was coming from the side of hotel of the victim towards the State Bank of India, he heard noises in the street and saw Shambir was standing, whereas Daulat Ram was lying on the ground. He does not name any other person. As per the statement of Shambir, PW-5, the street in which the occurrence took place, falls first and thereafter, the State Bank of India is located. It has also come in the statement of PW-5 that there were about 20-25 persons at the scene of occurrence and Sanjay son of Daulat Ram did not come to the place of occurrence. He along with Chander Bhan took the injured to the Hospital, whereas PW-8, son of the complainant, has admitted in his crossexamination that PW-5 -Shambir is friend of his brother Dinesh. His hotel was situated at a distance of 10 yards from the place of occurrence. He along with Chander Bhan took the injured to the Hospital, whereas PW-8, son of the complainant, has admitted in his crossexamination that PW-5 -Shambir is friend of his brother Dinesh. His hotel was situated at a distance of 10 yards from the place of occurrence. He reached the spot at 7.00 p.m. He never visited Government Hospital, Palwal to see his father while he was admitted there. He was called at Police Station Hathin after 2-3 months of the occurrence and his signatures were obtained on Exhibits PF/1 and PF/2 in the Police Station. Thus, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the scissors in the instant case was not identified by PW-8-Sanjay in whose presence the alleged recovery of scissors was effected. The learned counsel has submitted that in view of the fact that the recovery of scissors itself is doubtful, the case against the appellant is not made out. 18. On the other hand, learned State counsel has referred to the discharge report dated 8.1.1999 of the injured, issued by Holy Family Hospital from where he has received treatment and was operated upon. The diagnosis about injuries on the person of Daulat Ram injured was "Stab injury abdomen with Jejunal porforation". He has further stated that as per the medical terminology, jejunal porforation is a sort of hole in the smaller intestines and if not repaired, it could cause death. Therefore, the learned counsel states that the stab injury is established and the appellant had inflicted seven stabbed wounds from which it can be safely inferred that the appellant had intention to kill the injured. 19. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 20. Admittedly, there was no fracture in the chest of the complainant, but two stab wounds were found on the abdomen of injured Daulat Ram which were later on termed as "haziness of the whole of abdomen". This fact is established from the discharge certificate issued by Dr.Sudhir Kapoor, PW-2. As per the case of the defence, the complainant owed a sum of Rs. 4,500/- to the accused- appellant. This fact is established from the discharge certificate issued by Dr.Sudhir Kapoor, PW-2. As per the case of the defence, the complainant owed a sum of Rs. 4,500/- to the accused- appellant. The complainant did not want to re-pay and had got a case registered against the accused so that he may be saved from making payment; certain persons were taking liquor in the hotel of the complainants son and they inflicted injuries upon him; the complainant was taking liquor in the company of 4-5 persons in his hotel, as the complainant was suffering from tuberculosis, his son Sanjay did not want him to consume liquor from which ensued a quarrel between father and the son and in this process, the complainant had thrown a tumbler on the floor. On being given a push by his son, the complainant fell down and on account of pieces of glass scattered on the floor, he sustained injuries in his chest. This is also gathered from the statement of Mansa Ram, DW1 and Suresh, DW2. 21. It is the case of the prosecution that complainant Daulat Ram, PW-3, was going to the market for buying vegetables. Appellant Mohinder met him on the way. Shambir PW-5 also came over there. Appellant- Mohinder demanded a sum of Rs. 50/- from him and on refusal by the complainant, the accused-appellant inflicted scissors blows on the left side of his chest, as a result of which injured Daulat Ram fell down and thereafter was removed to the Hospital by Shambir and Master Chander Bhan. From this fact itself, it is established that it was a chance meeting between the appellant and the complainant. 22. PW-8- Sanjay son of injured Daulat Ram, in his statement has admitted that accused-appellant was arrested in his presence at the bus stand Hathin and in pursuance of the disclosure statement, he got recovered scissors from Anaj Mandi, vide recovery memo, Exhibit P1, which was signed by him. However, in his cross-examination, he has deposed that he was called at Police Station Hathin after 2-3 months of the date of occurrence and he signed Exhibits PF, PF/1 and PF/2 in the Police Station. He was not informed about the purpose for obtaining his signatures on Exhibits PF, PF/1 and PF/2. Thus, the statement of Sanjay makes the case of the prosecution doubtful. He was not informed about the purpose for obtaining his signatures on Exhibits PF, PF/1 and PF/2. Thus, the statement of Sanjay makes the case of the prosecution doubtful. The recovery of scissors, the alleged weapon used in the occurrence, is not proved. The occurrence took place on account of a sudden and grave provocation and not as a result of pre-mediation. 23. In view of the above discussion, the present appeal succeeds in part and conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby set aside. Instead, the accused-appellant is convicted for an offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to the period already undergone by him. However, the sentence of fine already awarded by the learned trial Court stands maintained. 24. With the above modification in the sentence, the present appeal stands disposed of. Appeal disposed of.