JUDGMENT : Z.A. Haq, J. Heard Shri J.B. Gandhi, advocate for the appellant and Shri H.R. Dhumale, A.P.P. for the respondent. 2. The appellant has challenged the judgment passed by the Sessions Court convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. According to the prosecution, on 25th November, 1997 at about 12 p.m. the complainant Chandu had gone to the public tap for fetching water, at that time, the accused came there to wash his legs, Chandu asked the accused to allow him to fill water, however, the accused did not listen, pushed aside Chandu's pot and washed his legs because of which altercation took place between Chandu and accused. The accused went to his house, came with axe and assaulted Chandu. The victim - Chandu suffered three blows of axe. Chandu lodged report on the basis of which the crime came to be registered against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. After completing the necessary formalities, charge-sheet came to be filed. The learned Sessions Judge after completing the trial passed the impugned judgment. 3. I have examined the record with the assistance of the learned advocate appearing for the appellant and the learned A.P.P. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has exhaustively dealt with the evidence on the record and the finding recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge concluding that the appellant is guilty cannot be faulted with. The learned advocate appearing for the appellant has not been able to point out any perversity in the appreciation of evidence by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 4. However, Shri J.B. Gandhi, learned advocate has submitted that the Sessions Court has committed an error in concluding that the appellant is liable for conviction for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that the evidence on the record and the nature of injuries can at the most make out a case of offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian penal Code. The learned advocate has referred to the evidence of Dr. It is submitted that the evidence on the record and the nature of injuries can at the most make out a case of offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian penal Code. The learned advocate has referred to the evidence of Dr. Sunita Ramesh Meshram (P.W.7) and has submitted that the nature of injuries does not suggest that the appellant had any intention to cause death of the victim. The learned advocate has pointed out the admission given by Dr. Sunita Ramesh Meshram that the size of weapon was small and less than 2 and 1/2 inches. It is further submitted that the prosecution has not been able to point out any motive for the offence. It is submitted that even if the case of prosecution is accepted, the incident took place in the heat of the moment. The learned advocate has submitted that the crime for which the appellant is prosecuted can be treated as offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian penal Code. The learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that appellant has undergone imprisonment of about more than four months. It is further submitted that the appellant is not involved in any crime, subsequently. 5. Though the learned A.P.P. has opposed the submission made on behalf of the appellant that the appellant cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, the learned A.P.P. has not been able to point out the motive for the commission of the offence. 6. Considering the facts on the record, I am of the view that the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is not proper and instead of it the appellant is liable for conviction for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the appellant had been in custody for the period of about more than four months. Considering the period for which the appellant had been in custody as the period of sentence, the appellant is further directed to pay fine of Rs. 26,000/- out of which Rs. 25,000/- shall be paid to the victim - Shri Chandu Pundlik Sirsat. The appellant shall deposit the amount of fine within two months. Considering the period for which the appellant had been in custody as the period of sentence, the appellant is further directed to pay fine of Rs. 26,000/- out of which Rs. 25,000/- shall be paid to the victim - Shri Chandu Pundlik Sirsat. The appellant shall deposit the amount of fine within two months. If the appellant fails to deposit the amount of fine within two months, the appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment for the period of two years. The appeal is partly allowed. The bail bond furnished by the appellant shall stand cancelled as soon as the appellant deposits the amount of fine. In the circumstances, parties to bear their own costs.