JUDGMENT The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of rupees two thousand in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. The appellant was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Amravati for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Charge was framed on 5th December, 2012 to which the appellant had pleaded not guilty. 2. The allegations against the appellant, in short, were that the appellant was married to Mrs. Asha, sister of complainant Ravindra Dalal. There was dispute between Asha and the appellant and therefore, Asha started staying with her brother Ravindra. It appears that Asha had filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tiosa against the appellant for grant of maintenance. The complainant used to attend dates of hearing along with his sister. 3. The incident in question had occurred on 16th June, 2012 when the complainant had attended the Court along with his sister. Later in the day when the complainant was sitting in his shop situated at Zilla Parishad Market, Tiosa, the appellant went there and assaulted the complainant by means of a knife. The complainant was rescued by the neighbouring shopkeepers. He was taken to Rural Hospital at Tiosa. His statement was recorded in the hospital by the police and first information report for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was registered vide First Information Report No. 73 of 2012. Thereafter he was admitted at Astha Hospital, Amravati for further treatment. During the course of further investigation the statements of witnesses were recorded. Medical Certificate in respect of the injuries sustained by the appellant was taken. The injury was sustained by the complainant on abdominal region anteriorly. The same has been described by the Medical Officer as incised wound having size 7cm x 3 cm x 2 cm over left thoraco abdominal region anteriorly. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed. As already stated, the appellant had pleaded not guilty to the charge. 4. The prosecution has examined in all nine witnesses in support of its case. P.W.1 is Ravindra complainant himself P.W.2 Amol Pote was running a shop in Zilla Parishad Market. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed. As already stated, the appellant had pleaded not guilty to the charge. 4. The prosecution has examined in all nine witnesses in support of its case. P.W.1 is Ravindra complainant himself P.W.2 Amol Pote was running a shop in Zilla Parishad Market. He is one of the eyewitnesses P.W.3 Sanjay Gedam had recorded statements of the complainant at Tiosa Rural Hospital. Printed F.I.R. has been exhibited as Exh. 15. Statement of P.W.1, recorded by P.W.3, has been exhibited as Exh. 10. P.W.4 Amit is one of the panch witnesses in whose presence spot panchnama was drawn by the police. P.W. 5 was present in the hospital when clothes of the complainant/injured were seized at General Hospital, Amravati. It appears that the complainant/injured was taken to General Hospital from Astha Private Hospital, P.W.6 is also panch witness in whose presence personal search of the appellant was taken. It is stated by this witness that during the course of search of the appellant the police had recovered an amount of Rs. 7,680/-, a surgical knife, a packet of chilly powder and a steel chain. All the articles were seized under panchnama Exh. 24. P.W.7 is also one of the eyewitnesses P.W.8 is Investigating Officer and P.W. 9 is Medical Officer who had examined the complainant. 5. The prosecution case is mainly based on the evidence of complainant and two eyewitnesses. The learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Patwardhan has submitted that the major portion of the evidence of P.W.1 is found to have been omitted by him while giving his statement before the police. It was submitted by Mr. Patwardhan that if the portion omitted by P.W.1 during police statement is taken out of the evidence of P.W.1, there remains nothing in the evidence of P.W.1 and the prosecution case may collapse on its own weight. However, the learned counsel Mr. Patwardhan has further submitted that if this court is inclined to consider that the offence, allegedly committed by the appellant, may not constitute an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, but may constitute a lesser offence, the learned counsel may argue on the said issue. 6. However, the learned counsel Mr. Patwardhan has further submitted that if this court is inclined to consider that the offence, allegedly committed by the appellant, may not constitute an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, but may constitute a lesser offence, the learned counsel may argue on the said issue. 6. After having gone through the evidence of the witnesses, particularly P.W.1, this Court had indicated to the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor that the appellant had no intention to cause death of P.W.1 nor had he intention to cause injury to P.W.1 which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of the nature. The injury has been described by the Medical Officer by 7 cm x 3cm x 2 cm. The Medical Officer has stated that it was a grievous injury. However, no further details are given by the Medical Officer as to how could it be described as grievous hurt. There is no evidence to indicate that the injury could have endangered the life of P.W.1. Therefore, it was difficult to say that it could fall under clause eight of Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code. As such, after careful examination of evidence of P.W.1 and other two witnesses viz. Anant Pant and Amol Potey, I am of the opinion that the appellant did not want to cause death of P.W.1 nor did he want to cause injury to P.W.1 which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of the nature. However, there is sufficient evidence to hold that the appellant had voluntarily gone to the shop of P.W.1 and had voluntarily caused hurt to P.W.1 by means of knife. The knife was recovered from the appellant during his personal search. It was a surgical knife. As such, in my opinion, the appellant had caused hurt to P.W.1 by means of knife, which is a weapon used for cutting. The act of the appellant, therefore, would fall under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and not under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. I view of above discussion, I pass the following order. i) The appeal is partly allowed. ii) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside. 7. I view of above discussion, I pass the following order. i) The appeal is partly allowed. ii) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside. He is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of fifteen months and to pay a fine of rupees five hundred in default to undergo simple imprisonment for seven days. iii) Set off be given for the custody period. iv) Fine amount paid in excess, if any, shall be refunded to the appellant. Appeal, accordingly, stands disposed of. Appeal partly allowed.