Judgment : The appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction, delivered by the learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani, in Session Case No. 91 of 2010, convicting the appellant accused of an offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for eight years, and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. 2. The prosecution case as put forth before the trial Court was, in brief, as follows: The appellant and injured Uttamrao are both resident of village Sonna, Tq. Sailu, District Parbhani. The appellant original accused is a distant relation of the first informant Uttamrao Prabatrao Magar. There was some civil dispute between the said Uttamrao and the appellant. The appellant was having a belief that he was entitled to have a share in the field known as "Barad", which was in possession of the said Uttamrao. As Uttamrao was not ready to accept this, there used to be disputes and quarrels between the appellant and Uttamrao, and that the appellant had been extending threats that he would kill Uttamrao. Uttamraohad three sons, viz: Laxman, Ramrao and Munjabhau. Ramrao and Munjabhau were residing with Uttamrao. On 26.06.2009, at about 4.30 p.m., Prasad Magar (P.W.1), grandson of Uttamrao, was standing in front of his house. That, at that time, the appellant came there and started abusing him. Prasad asked the appellant as to why he was hurling abuses, when the appellant expressed, that his right was being denied to him and that his share in the agricultural land "Barad" was not being given to him. On this, there was some hot exchange of words between the appellant and Prasad(P.W.1). Uttamrao, who was inside the house, heard the same, and came out. He asked the appellant as to why he was quarreling with Prasad. The appellant then suddenly inflicted a blow of knife on the neck of Uttamrao. He inflicted another blow on the chest of Uttamrao, which was warded off by Uttamrao, but in this process, Uttamrao sustained injuries to his fingers. Thereafter, a third blow was given by the appellant on the stomach of Uttamrao. The injury caused was severe. There was considerable blood loss. Injured Uttamrao was first taken to Police Station, and from there, he was referred to Primary Health Centre, Sailu. Thereafter, a third blow was given by the appellant on the stomach of Uttamrao. The injury caused was severe. There was considerable blood loss. Injured Uttamrao was first taken to Police Station, and from there, he was referred to Primary Health Centre, Sailu. He was examined there and then was referred to the Hospital at Parbhani. On the next day, statement of Uttamrao was recorded in the hospital by the Police and it was treated as the First Information Report, on the basis of which, a case in respect of offences punishable under sections 307, 324, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellant. 3. In the course of investigation, spot panchnama was drawn, sample of soil from the place of incident was collected and statements of certain persons were recorded. In the course of investigation, the appellant disclosed certain information, pursuant to which, a knife, that is stated to be the weapon of offence, was recovered from the rear portion of the appellant's house. The incriminating articles were sent to the Chemical Analyzer, Aurangabad for analysis and opinion. On completion of investigation, the appellant was chargesheeted and prosecuted as aforesaid. 4. The prosecution examined nine witnesses, during the trial. Certain documents, including the Chemical Analyzer's report, were also tendered in evidence. 5. The learned Sessions Judge concluded that, the fact that the appellant had inflicted blows of knife on the person of first informant Uttamrao had been satisfactorily proved. He also concluded that the assault was 'with such intention and knowledge' that,had Uttamrao died on account of the injuries, the appellant would have been guilty of murder. Based on this, he convicted the appellant of an offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as aforesaid. 6. As the appellant was undefended and in prison, Mr. Sachin S. Deshmukh, Advocate, was appointed to prosecute the appeal, under the free Legal Aid Scheme. 7. I have heard Mr. Sachin S. Deshmukh, the learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. T. S. Lodhe, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the entire evidence adduced during the trial. I have carefully gone through the impugned judgment. I have also gone through the relevant record. 8. Prasad (P.W.1) and Munjabhau (P.W.2) claimed to be the eye witnesses to the incident. T. S. Lodhe, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the entire evidence adduced during the trial. I have carefully gone through the impugned judgment. I have also gone through the relevant record. 8. Prasad (P.W.1) and Munjabhau (P.W.2) claimed to be the eye witnesses to the incident. Their evidence and the evidence of first informant Uttamrao (P.W.3) is consistent with regard to the actual incident of assault, and also about manner in which the incident started and ended. The evidence of Uttamrao is corroborated by medical evidence, which shows that Uttamrao had sustained three injuries on his body. Dr. Pratapsing Shrihari Shinde(P.W.4), Medical Officer attached to Primary Health Centre, Sailu at the material time, had treated the first informant Uttamrao, in the said Health Centre. In his evidence, he has mentioned that Uttamrao had sustained injuries at three places on his body. The evidence also does not leave any doubt about the place, where the assault on Uttamrao took place. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge has considered the entire evidence in a proper perspective, while coming to the conclusion that Uttamrao was indeed assaulted by the appellant in front of the house of Uttamrao. The view of the learned Sessions Judge that direct evidence of assault was corroborated by circumstantial evidence of the recovery of knife at the instance of the appellant, and from the presence of stains of blood of group AB on the clothes of the appellant, etc, is correct. 9. Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel submitted that the evidence of Prasad (P.W.1), Munjabhau (P.W.2) and first informant Uttamrao (P.W.3) was not free from doubt. He submitted that, though the incident took place on road and in broad daylight, no independent witnesses (although would have been easily available) were examined. However, after considering the evidence of Prasad (P.W.1), Munjabhau (P.W.2) and first informant Uttamrao (P.W.3), I see no reason to doubt their testimonies to the effect that, at the given time and place, Uttamrao was assaulted by the appellant causing injuries to him. 10. Mr. Deshmukh also raised a contention that even assuming that Uttamrao was indeed assaulted, the offence allegedly committed by the appellant cannot be held to be one punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 10. Mr. Deshmukh also raised a contention that even assuming that Uttamrao was indeed assaulted, the offence allegedly committed by the appellant cannot be held to be one punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. According to him, there was absolutely no medical evidence suggesting that the injuries caused to Uttamrao were dangerous to life. He also submitted that there was basis for assuming that the manner in which the witnesses claimed the incident had started, was not correct, and that, there was basis for believing that some scuffle had taken place before the actual assault. He also submitted that trial was held in an unusually speedy manner, inasmuch as, recording of evidence of Uttamrao commenced on 05.01.2011. Statement of the accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded on 06.01.2011, immediately after the recording of evidence was over. He pointed out that, the judgment was delivered on the same day. Mr. Sachin Deshmukh submitted, that from this record itself, it can be said that defence was unable to have a proper opportunity of defending, and that this has caused prejudice to the appellant. He urged that this factor also may be taken into consideration, while reading the evidence adduced during the trial. 11. Though there is some substance in these submissions, there is nothing to indicate that the appellant, who was represented by an Advocate, had requested the learned Sessions Judge to grant him some time for being able to defend the case properly. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that any prejudice was caused to the appellant in defending himself. 12. The contention raised by Mr. Sachin Deshmukh, about what offence was disclosed from the evidence on record, however, needs serious consideration. He submitted that, in absence of medical evidence about the nature of the injuries, it would be dangerous to come to the conclusion that the offence committed by the appellant would be one punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. He submitted that there was no material to indicate that the appellant extended threats to cause death of Uttamrao. He also submitted that in the absence of medical opinion, or other evidence, to show the seriousness of the injuries, the knowledge necessary to constitute the offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, cannot be attributed to the appellant. He also submitted that in the absence of medical opinion, or other evidence, to show the seriousness of the injuries, the knowledge necessary to constitute the offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, cannot be attributed to the appellant. He drew my attention to two decisions of the Supreme Court of India in the following cases: (1) Neelam Bhai and another Vs. State of Uttarakahnd reported in (2010)2 Supreme Court Cases 229. (2) Toran Singh Vs. State of M.P. reported in (2002) 6 Supreme Court Cases 494. 13. I have carefully considered this aspect of the matter. Indeed, the evidence of Dr. Pratapsingh Shinde (P.W.4) is not satisfactory for the purpose of ascertaining the nature or seriousness of the injuries sustained by Uttamrao. In his evidence, Dr. Pratapsingh Shinde(P.W.4) has not mentioned the type of injuries at all. All that he had said is that Uttamrao had sustained injuries at three places on his body. The details of the injuries, as found in his evidence are that the first injury was on left side of the neck, of 8 X 2 c.m., horizontal, caused by hard and sharp weapon. Second Injury was on the left lower part of the abdomen and the measurements thereof were given by him as 7 X 2 c.m.. The third injury was mentioned by him as 'on right thumb and little finger.' 14. According to Dr.Pratapsingh Shinde (P.W.4), the injury on the abdomen was 'grievous' in nature, while the other two injuries were simple. The Medical Certificate issued by him was tendered in the evidence and marked as Exhibit 14. Perusal of the Medico Legal Certificate (Exhibit 14) shows that in the column 'Kind of injury,' all these injuries are described as 'CLW' i.e. Contused Lacerated Wound. Ordinarily, such injuries are not expected to be caused by a sharp weapon like knife. Such injuries, by the use of knife, would be possible, only if such knife would not be sufficiently sharp, or when the blunt side of that knife would be used for inflicting the blows. Moreover, though this witness has stated that the injury on the abdomen of appellant was 'grievous' in nature, he has not given the depth of the said injury and has mentioned only its length and width. Moreover, though this witness has stated that the injury on the abdomen of appellant was 'grievous' in nature, he has not given the depth of the said injury and has mentioned only its length and width. In my opinion, since the injury has been described as Contused Lacerated Wound, and since no depth of the said injury has been mentioned, it is not possible to accept that the injury was 'grievous' in nature. Moreover, the concept 'grievous'(hurt) is not a medical concept, but it is a legal concept. Really speaking, there is no concept as 'grievous injury' and the concept known to law is 'grievous hurt'. The witness has not stated that the injuries were dangerous to life, or that they endangered the life of the patient. It would be therefore difficult to come to the conclusion that injuries caused to Uttamrao would amount to 'grievous hurt' as contemplated under section 320 of the Indian Penal Code. 15. It is true that, if there would be an intention to cause death, the nature of injuries sustained by the victim in the assault would not be relevant, and the offence committed by a such offender would be punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. However, in this case, there is nothing to show that the appellant intended to cause the death of Uttamrao. Infact, Uttamrao had, apparently, come on the scene accidentally, on hearing the quarrel between Prasad and appellant. Uttamrao's evidence indicates that, he entered into an argument with the appellant saying that the appellant had no right in the land, and apparently, in the midst of the quarrel, the appellant inflicted certain blows with knife on Uttamrao. The houses of the appellant and that of Uttamrao are situated adjacent to each other, and the quarrels and disputes over the said agricultural land were frequently taking place between them. Under the circumstances, it would be impossible to come to the conclusion that the appellant intended to cause death of Uttamrao. Even the knowledge necessary to constitute the offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be attributed, to the appellant in the absence of evidence to show that serious injuries were inflicted, or intended to be inflicted, upon Uttamrao. As observed, the medical evidence does not indicate seriousness of the injuries. Even the knowledge necessary to constitute the offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be attributed, to the appellant in the absence of evidence to show that serious injuries were inflicted, or intended to be inflicted, upon Uttamrao. As observed, the medical evidence does not indicate seriousness of the injuries. If at all the injuries were indeed CLW, the least that can be said is that the weapon of assault was, certainly, not sharp, and a person giving blows by such a weapon cannot be attributed with the knowledge requisite to make his act an offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, in the absence of anything more. 16. There is also no evidence indicating the period during which Uttamrao was required to be hospitalized. There is no evidence as to for how many days he was medically treated. Since his statement is recorded on very next day after the incident, it is not possible to conclude that he had sustained such injuries, as amounted to grievous hurt. 17. Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, in my opinion, the conviction of the appellant with respect to the offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was not justified. The offence committed by the appellant appears to one punishable under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. 18. Mr. Sachin Deshmukh urged that keeping this aspect in the mind, the sentence awarded to the appellant was liable to be reduced, but he urged that it may be reduced to the period already undergone. He submitted that the appellant requires to maintain his wife and two children. He also submitted that the appellant was arrested on 28.06.2009 and had remained in custody till 17.08.2009, when he was released on bail. Mr. Deshmukh also submitted that the appellant was again taken in custody on 25.10.2010, and that he continues to be in custody since then. He submitted that the appellant has, thus, undergone a sentence of about 15 months already. The record supports the statement made by Mr. Deshmukh. Mr. Lodhe, the learned APP also accepts the correctness of this fact i.e. period actually undergone by the appellant in custody. 19. I find that the learned Sessions Judge has imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/upon the appellant. The record supports the statement made by Mr. Deshmukh. Mr. Lodhe, the learned APP also accepts the correctness of this fact i.e. period actually undergone by the appellant in custody. 19. I find that the learned Sessions Judge has imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/upon the appellant. Though I hold that the offence committed by the appellant is punishable under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, and though I am inclined to impose a sentence of imprisonment only for the period that has already been undergone by the appellant, I think it proper, to enhance the amount of fine considerably, so that first informant, who had sustained injuries, can be suitably compensated by directing payment of this amount to him. In my opinion, such a course will meet the ends of justice. 20. Under the circumstances, the appeal is being disposed of as follows: (i) The Appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The conviction of the appellant in respect of the offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence imposed upon him therefor, is set aside. (iii) Instead, the appellant is convicted of an offence punishable under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for the period already undergone, and to pay a fine ofRs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand), in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. (iv) If the fine is recovered, it shall be paid to the victim Uttamrao, as compensation. 21. The appeal is allowed in above terms and to the aforesaid extent. 22. Professional fees payable to Mr. Sachin S. Deshmukh, Advocate appointed to represent the appellant, are quantified at Rs.3000/-.