JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. SC Biswas, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Ms. S Jahan, learned Addl. PP, Assam. 2. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 14-06-2002 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj in Criminal Appeal No.11(2)/1999 dismissing the appeal and upholding the conviction and sentence of the revision petitioners in GR Case No.163/1992, whereby the revision petitioners were convicted under Section 323/326 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for 3 (three) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation under Section 326 IPC and also imprisonment for 3 (three) months under Section 323 IPC. 3. The prosecution case as unfolded during trial in a nut-shell is that on 28-02-1992, when Mustafa Ahmed (Pw-5) was coming out of the mosque, accused Sultan Ahmed Nitu Mia @ Ijjadur Rahman and Siraj Uddin assaulted him with dao and dagger causing multiple injuries to Pw-5. The FIR was lodged by Jalal Ahmed, Pw-3. On the basis of the said FIR, police registered a case and on completion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the revision petitioner Sultan Ahmed and Nitu Mia. In course of trial, the prosecution examined 7 (seven) witnesses including the doctor and I/O and on appreciation of evidence, learned SDJM, Karimganj convicted the revision petitioners under Section 323/326 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and awarded sentence as indicated above. 4. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned Trial Court, the revision petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge by impugned judgment and order, upheld the conviction and sentence of the revision petitioner and dismissed the appeal. The judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge has been challenged in this revision petition. 5. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel for the revision petitioner has not denied the occurrence or the injuries sustained by the Pw-5. The contention of Mr. Biswas is that the medical evidence brought on record does not constitute an offence under Section 326 IPC and according to the learned counsel, at best, an offence under Section 324 could be made out. Mr. Biswas also submitted that the occurrence took place in the year 1992 as a result of dispute relating to property between the parties who were close relations and urged for dealing with the accused persons leniently. 6. Dr. Mr. Biswas also submitted that the occurrence took place in the year 1992 as a result of dispute relating to property between the parties who were close relations and urged for dealing with the accused persons leniently. 6. Dr. Lipi Das has been examined as Pw-7 who stated in his evidence that the victim Pw-5 sustained the following injuries :- (i). Cut injury over right front-partial region. (ii). Oblique stitched would over left forearm. (iii). Stitched would over left inguinal region. 7. In the opinion of the doctor, the injury Nos.1 and 2 were simple in nature and injury No.3 was grievous in nature. On the basis of the evidence of the doctor that the injury No.3 was grievous in nature and caused by sharp cutting weapon and the oral testimony of Pw-5, that he was in hospital for one and half months, learned Trial Court as well as the appellate court convicted the accused persons under Section 326 IPC. 8. Section 320 IPC defines grievous hurt as under: 320. Grievous hurt.—The following kinds of hurt only are designated as “grievous”:— (First) — Emasculation. (Secondly) —Permanent privation of the sight of either eye. (Thirdly) — Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear, (Fourthly) —Privation of any member or joint. (Fifthly) — Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint. (Sixthly) — Permanent disfiguration of the head or face. (Seventhly) —Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth. (Eighthly) —Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits. 9. It is submitted at the bar by the learned Addl. PP that the injury in the instant would come within the definition of grievous hurt, as per clause 8 of Section 320. In order to bring any injury or hurt within the definition of clause 8 of Section 320, the hurt or injury must be of such serious nature which endangers the life of the injured or the injured must have suffered for 20 days bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits during such period. Contention of the learned Addl. PP is that the hospitalization of the injured for one and half months would bring the offence under Clause 8 of Section 320 IPC 10. This High Court in Jiban Das Vs. Contention of the learned Addl. PP is that the hospitalization of the injured for one and half months would bring the offence under Clause 8 of Section 320 IPC 10. This High Court in Jiban Das Vs. State of Assam reported in 2004(2) GLT 668 held that mere staying in a hospital for 20 days or more is not sufficient to attract the provision of clause 8 of Section 320. It is also to be proved that the injured, during the period of such sufferance was unable to follow his ordinary pursuits for a period of 20 (twenty) days or more. In para 9 and 10 of the said judgment, this Court held as under: (9) The question that emerges is whether mere stay in the hospital for 20 days or more is sufficient to attract the provisions of clause 8 of Section 320. In view of the specific provisions as quoted above, we hold that the prosecution also must establish that the victim, as a result of the injuries sustained by him suffered severe bodily pain during the space of 20 days or that he was unable to follow his ordinary pursuits. In the case of Dr. AG bhagwat v. UT Chandigarh, 1989 Crl. LJ 214, a Division Bench of the Apex Court has held that where the medical witness has not stated that the injured after remaining under him suffered severe bodily pain or was unable to follow his ordinary pursuits for a period of 20 days or more clause eight does not apply. (10) In view of the clear language of the provisions of law, we hold that mere stay or remaining on the hospital for treatment for 20 days or more in itself is not sufficient to term the hurt as grievous hurt under clause eight. 11. The injury No.3 as reveled from the medical evidence cannot be held to be of such nature, as to endanger the life. Although the injured stated that he was in hospital for 1½ months, no other supporting evidence has been adduced to show that he was really in the hospital for such period. 11. The injury No.3 as reveled from the medical evidence cannot be held to be of such nature, as to endanger the life. Although the injured stated that he was in hospital for 1½ months, no other supporting evidence has been adduced to show that he was really in the hospital for such period. Be that as it may, besides the testimony of Pw-5, that he was in hospital for more than 20 days, no other evidence was brought on record to indicate that the injured while suffering from bodily pain for the injury in the hospital was unable to follow his ordinary pursuit for a period of 20 days or more. Therefore, the injury or hurt suffered by the victim, can by no stretch of imagination be brought within the definition of clause-8 of Section 320 IPC. 12. In view of the above, it is held that the injury suffered by Pw-5 did not constitute an offence under Section 326 IPC and therefore, the conviction of the accused persons under Section 326 IPC cannot be maintained and accordingly altered to Section 324 IPC. Evidently, the incident took place in the year 1992 and in the meantime, 25 years have elapsed. Thus considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused persons are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 323 IPC and Rs.2000/- each under Section 324 IPC. In default of payment of fine, the accused persons/revision petitioners are sentenced to simple imprisonment for 15 (fifteen) days under Section 323 IPC and 3 (three) months under Section 324 IPC. 13. With the above modification in the conviction and sentence, the revision petition stands disposed of. The revision petitioners are directed to surrender forthwith before the learned SDJM, Karimganj and to pay the fine or in default serve out the sentence. 14. Send down the records.