JUDGMENT Mr. Inderjit Singh, J.:- Balwinder Singh-appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.7.2000 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar, whereby accused-appellant has been held guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’). He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 307 IPC. However, accused Amar Singh son of Sunder Singh and Gurnam Singh have been acquitted of the charge framed against them. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 29.6.1995 at about 5.00 p.m., Madho Singh took his buffaloes to the pond, which is near the house of Balwinder Singh-accused. The complainant was sitting near the pond. Balwinder Singh armed with a ‘Kirpan’ along with Amar Singh son of Sunder Singh and Gurnam Singh came there. Gurnam Singh and Balwinder Singh were under the influence of liquor. Amar Singh caught hold of Madho Singh from his arms and Balwinder Singh gave a sword blow on the right side of head of Madho Singh. Gurnam Singh gave fist blows. Then the complainant raised alarm, which attracted his brother Amar Singh son of Norang Singh, who witnessed the occurrence. After about two minutes, he became unconscious and he regained his consciousness at Civil Hospital, Chamkaur Sahib. His statement Ex.PG was recorded which was read over to him and he after hearing the same to be correct put his thumb impression on it. ‘Parna’ was produced by him, which was taken into Police possession. The Investigating Officer visited the spot. Rough site plan was prepared. After investigation, the challan was presented. 3. On presentation of challan, the trial Court finding prima facie case against the accused framed charge for the offence under Section 307 IPC against accused-appellant Balwinder Singh and for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC against accused Amar Singh and Gurnam Singh, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Dr. Rajinder Kumar, Senior Medical Officer, CHC, Chamkaur Sahib, who mainly deposed regarding conducting medico-legal examination of Madho Singh on 29.7.1995 at 7.15 p.m. and found the following injuries:- “1. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Dr. Rajinder Kumar, Senior Medical Officer, CHC, Chamkaur Sahib, who mainly deposed regarding conducting medico-legal examination of Madho Singh on 29.7.1995 at 7.15 p.m. and found the following injuries:- “1. Incised wound 6½ cm x ½ cm spindle shaped placed obliquely 7½ cm above upper border of right ear on right parietal region. Bone deep chips of bone could be palpated in the wound and the bone cut. Right side of face and shirt was smeared with clotted blood. On palpation fresh blood came out of wound. X-ray was advised.” 5. Nature of injury was grievous. Kind of weapon was sharp and probable duration of injury was within six hours. The doctor PW-1 also proved the medico-legal examination report. He also deposed that on 29.6.1995 and 30.6.1995 the Police filed applications regarding his opinion about Madho Singh whether he is fit or unfit to make statement and he declared him unfit to make statement. On 2.7.1995, on Police request, he declared the patient Madho Singh fit to make statement. He further stated that on 22.7.1995, on Police request Ex.PE, he made endorsement Ex.PE/1 to the effect that the above said injury could have been dangerous to life. In cross-examination, the doctor has stated that he had not mentioned the depth of the bone cut. The result of the X-ray was not shown to him. 6. PW-2 ASI Gurmit Singh, CIA Staff mainly deposed regarding investigation of this case. He deposed regarding preparing of rough site plan Ex.PH and recording of the statement of witnesses. He also stated that Madho Singh, injured produced one ‘Parna’ which was having cut and was blood stained. PW-3 ASI Nasib Chand deposed that he also conducted partly investigation in this case and he deposed regarding the arrest of the accused in the case. PW-4 Madho Singh, complainant, who is injured witness, has deposed as per prosecution version. PW-5 HC Balwinder Kumar mainly deposed regarding recording of formal FIR. He also deposed that he was member of the Police party when the accused were apprehended and on interrogation they made disclosure statements. Accused Balwinder Singh got recovered one sword which was taken into Police possession vide recovery memo Ex.PO. PW-6 HC Gajan Singh is a formal witness, who was posted as MHC on 2.7.1995. He deposed regarding depositing of sealed parcels containing blood stained ‘Parna’. Accused Balwinder Singh got recovered one sword which was taken into Police possession vide recovery memo Ex.PO. PW-6 HC Gajan Singh is a formal witness, who was posted as MHC on 2.7.1995. He deposed regarding depositing of sealed parcels containing blood stained ‘Parna’. PW-7 SI Avtar Singh also deposed regarding partly investigation conducted by him in this case. PW-8 Khushdeep Singh, Draftsman deposed regarding preparing of scaled site plan Ex.PR. PW-9 Amar Singh son of Norang Singh is also an eye witness and he deposed as per prosecution version. 7. At the close of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and were confronted with the evidence of the prosecution but they denied the correctness of the evidence and pleaded themselves as innocent. Appellant-Balwinder Singh deposed that Madho Singh and Amar Singh gave a ‘Phwara’ blow at the head of Gurnam Singh, co-accused, who is driver of the accused and a case had been registered against them as a counter-blast. No defence has been led. 8. After going through the evidence and material on record, the learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as stated above and acquitted accused Amar Singh son of Sunder Singh and Gurnam Singh. 9. At the time of arguments, learned senior counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. He next argued that there is no X-ray examination in the present case. Radiologist has not been examined. The doctor has also not given the depth of the cut but has simply stated that the injury is grievous. He argued that in the absence of Radiologist report, X-ray films and the depth of the bone cut, injury cannot be held as grievous. Learned senior counsel for the appellant further argued that the doctor in his opinion after about one month of the occurrence stated that the injury could have been dangerous to life. He has not specifically stated that the injury was dangerous to life or endangered life. He cannot say that it could have been which means that the injury may have been dangerous to life or may not have been dangerous to life. So, on this opinion, the appellant cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 307 IPC. The appellant has already undergone three months and 27 days of imprisonment. He cannot say that it could have been which means that the injury may have been dangerous to life or may not have been dangerous to life. So, on this opinion, the appellant cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 307 IPC. The appellant has already undergone three months and 27 days of imprisonment. He further argued that it is a case of version and cross-version and the accused party has also received injuries for which PW-9 Amar Singh son of Norang Singh has been convicted, who later on died and the appeal is pending in this Court for today itself. Therefore, he argued that there being merit in this appeal, it should be allowed. 10. On the other hand, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the respondent-State argued that the case of the prosecution has been duly proved. The complainant and the eye witnesses have consistently deposed against the appellant. Their statements are duly supported and corroborated by medical evidence and investigation of the case. The appellant has been rightly convicted by the Court. Therefore, he argued that there is no merit in this appeal and it should be dismissed. 11. I have gone through the evidence on record minutely and carefully and have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the respondent-State. 12. From the evidence on record, I find that there is no specific opinion of the doctor that the injury was dangerous to life. The opinion of the doctor that it could have been dangerous to life means that there is possibility of injury being dangerous to life. In that event, it is also possible that the injury may not have been dangerous to life. There is no specific opinion of the doctor that the injury endangered the life of Madho Singh and it was dangerous to life. Therefore, in the absence of this opinion, the injury cannot be held as dangerous to life and the offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out. There is nothing in the statement of PW-4 Madho Singh that the injury was given on his person with an intention to kill him. Therefore, in the absence of this opinion, the injury cannot be held as dangerous to life and the offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out. There is nothing in the statement of PW-4 Madho Singh that the injury was given on his person with an intention to kill him. Further, from the medical evidence, I find that in the present case neither X-ray films were proved as per law nor any Radiologist appeared as witness nor there is any Radiologist report on the file to show that the injury in question is grievous in nature. The doctor has not given the depth of the injury. Therefore, in view of this, the injury in question also cannot be held as grievous in nature. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in State of Punjab v. Jiwan Singh, 1994(2) RCR (Cr.) 373 (D.B.) in which it is held that there were grievous injury and simple injury incised wound 3" x 1/4" on skull. No X-ray was done for the injury. The Doctor admitted in cross-examination that outer table of skull was cut and the cut was visible with naked eyes and the injury was not measured. It was held that the injury was not grievous. The accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 326 Indian Penal Code. 14. On this point learned counsel for the appellant further placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in State of Punjab v. Manga Singh, 1992 (2) RCR (Cr.) 144 (D.B.), in which it was observed that the injury was caused with ‘Gandasi’ cutting bone. The doctor declared the injury as grievous without X-ray examination to probe depth of cut. The opinion of the doctor based on visual observations cannot be accepted. The injury could not be termed as grievous. It was held that reasoning not supporting X-ray of the injury having not been got done by the medical expert, the opinion based on mere visual observation falls through and was rightly ignored by the learned trial Court. The injury inflicted by Manga Singh in that case on the person of Gian Singh cannot, therefore, be termed grievous. 15. It was held that reasoning not supporting X-ray of the injury having not been got done by the medical expert, the opinion based on mere visual observation falls through and was rightly ignored by the learned trial Court. The injury inflicted by Manga Singh in that case on the person of Gian Singh cannot, therefore, be termed grievous. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant further placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Sucha Ram v. State of Punjab, 1978 PLR 61, in which it is held that if the injured was really in danger of death, it was expected of Doctor that he should have made a mention of it in his operation notes. His mere saying in the Court at the time of his explanation that the injured would have died if no medical aid was provided to him is not sufficient to hold that the injury was sufficient to cause his death or that the injured was in fear of death. Thus, the finding of the learned trial Judge that the offence committed by the appellant was under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, is not correct and in fact the offence committed by him falls under Section 326 IPC. 16. In view of the above, the law laid down in the above mentioned judgments, on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant, applies in the present case. Therefore, in view of the medical evidence on record, I find that the offence under Section 324 IPC is made out. 17. From the evidence on record, I find that PW-4 Madho Singh, who is injured witness and PW-9 Amar Singh eye witness have consistently deposed regarding prosecution version and there is no material contradictions and improvements in their statements. As per prosecution version appellant Balwinder Singh has given injury to Madho Singh with ‘Kirpan’ blow. ‘Kirpan’ was got recovered by Balwinder Singh as per his disclosure statement which further supports and corroborates the prosecution version. The oral evidence is also supported and corroborated by medical evidence and investigation of the case. Therefore, from the above, I hold that appellant Balwinder Singh has caused simple injury to Madho Singh and has committed the offence under Section 324 IPC. Therefore, I convict him for the offence under Section 324 IPC instead of under Section 307 IPC. 18. The oral evidence is also supported and corroborated by medical evidence and investigation of the case. Therefore, from the above, I hold that appellant Balwinder Singh has caused simple injury to Madho Singh and has committed the offence under Section 324 IPC. Therefore, I convict him for the offence under Section 324 IPC instead of under Section 307 IPC. 18. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that a compromise had already been effected between the parties when Madho Singh was alive, but he had now died. Therefore, his nephew had signed on the compromise deed which was orally effected between the parties at that time. The appellant has already undergone the sentence of imprisonment for three months and 27 days. This FIR is of the year 1995 and about 18 years have already elapsed since the occurrence. 19. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, the sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone. Since, the appellant is on bail, his bail and surety bonds stand discharged. 20. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed. --------0.B.S.0------------