JUDGMENT : P.P. BHATT, J. The appellants have preferred the present appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of conviction dated 12/01/2016 rendered by the learned Sessions Court, Anand in Sessions Case No. 132 of 2012, whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 325 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and fine of Rs. 20,000/- each and in default to pay fine, simple imprisonment for a period of two years. The appellants-accused are also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 504 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default to pay fine, simple imprisonment for a period of three months. It is also ordered to run both the sentence concurrently. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that present appellants-original accused assaulted one Arjunbhai Memabhai Waghela for the reason that the injured Arjunbhai Memabhai Waghela was interrupting in the settlement process in the case of one Pankajbhai Koteja. The said incident happened on 06/05/2012 when said Arjunbhai Memabhai Waghela was closing his shop at about 7:15 p.m. At that time all these three accused came on the motorbike at the shop and accused Rameshbhai and accused Dineshbhai caught hold the injured and accused Vijaybhai gave knife blow on the stomach of the injured and caused deadly injury and then fled away and thereby the appellants-accused have committed offence punishable under Section 307, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, the complaint came to be lodged against the appellants-accused. 3. In pursuance of the complaint, the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and filed the charge-sheet against the appellants-accused before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anand who has committed the case to the Court of Sessions where the case is numbered as Sessions Case No. 132 of 2012. The learned Sessions Judge has framed charge against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 4. To prove the case against the appellants-accused, the prosecution has examined about eleven witnesses and also produced several documentary evidences. 5. The learned Sessions Judge has framed charge against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 4. To prove the case against the appellants-accused, the prosecution has examined about eleven witnesses and also produced several documentary evidences. 5. At the end of the trial after recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C and hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence, learned Sessions Court delivered the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, as mentioned above. 6. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants have preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeal before this Court. 7. By way of preferring the present appeal, the appellants have mainly contended that learned Sessions Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly recorded the order of conviction and sentence. It is further contended that learned trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and hence, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence is required to be reversed as such. 8. Mr. Suresh B. Bhatt, learned advocate for the appellants has taken this Court through the entire records and proceedings of the learned Sessions Court and he has argued that the learned Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence on record. It is also submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. It is submitted that the so called incident occurred on 06/05/2012 at 7:15 p.m, but no independent witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and the witnesses examined by the prosecution are close relatives and interested witnesses. It is further submitted that version given by PW-2 Arjunbhai in his evidence is also not consistent and there are omissions and contradictions in the evidence of said witnesses. It is further submitted that version given by the injured witness before the trial court is also not supported by any independent witness. It is further submitted that version given by PW-2 Arjunbhai in his evidence is also not consistent and there are omissions and contradictions in the evidence of said witnesses. It is further submitted that version given by the injured witness before the trial court is also not supported by any independent witness. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the evidence of prosecution witnesses are not reliable and trustworthy and same cannot be believed and therefore the learned trial court has erred in convicting the appellants relying upon such evidence and thereby committed error in recording findings of conviction and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence is required to be set aside. It is also submitted that no panchnama was drawn for recovery of muddamal cloths and blood group of the injured person and/or the panchnama does not indicate blood stains of the injured person. It is also submitted that there are material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, however, the learned Sessions Court, without appreciating the same, arrived at the conclusion that the appellants are held guilty for causing injury to the injured person and thereby convicted and sentenced for the offence as alleged. Learned advocate for the appellants while referring Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, submitted that from the FIR and charge sheet papers as well as on the basis of oral evidence adduced before the Sessions Court, prima facie, ingredients of Section 325 are not attracted or satisfied, however, the learned Sessions Court has proceeded on that basis and thereby convicted the appellants-accused and imposed sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years. 9. While calling the appeal, learned advocate for the appellants submitted that the appellants have undergone by now about 16 months sentence and therefore, looking to the evidence on record, conviction may be converted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and “thereby impose maximum sentence of three years. It is also submitted that looking to the sentence undergone and considering the aspect of set off and remission, the appellants will have now, to undergo to sufficient sentence so though after getting set off, released from the trial after conclusion of the sentence which would be appropriate which adequate sentence qua the appellants looking to the role pleaded by them. He, therefore, urged to this Court to allow the present appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of conviction. 10. On the other hand, Mr. K.L. Pandya, learned APP appearing for the respondent-State has strongly supported the judgment of learned Sessions Court and has argued that the learned Sessions Court has not committed any error while recording the judgment and order of conviction and sentence and therefore, the same is not required to be interfered by this Court. He has also submitted that the learned trial court has properly considered oral evidence of the injured person as well as medical evidence and evidence of other eye witnesses. It is also submitted by learned APP that FSL report also supports the prosecution case and under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the court below has convicted the appellants-accused without appreciating the evidence on record. Learned APP, while making his submissions, submits that there is no infirmity in the judgment of the learned trial court as the learned Sessions Court has recorded ample and sufficient reasons based on the evidence on record for convicting the appellants and, therefore, this Court should not disturb the finding recorded by learned Sessions Court, as such. Learned APP has also placed on record the jail remarks of the appellants. 11. This Court has minutely gone through the impugned judgment and order rendered by learned trial Court as well as the evidence on record. As per the prosecution version, as the injured Arjunbhai Memabhai Vaghela was interrupting for the settlement purpose in the case of one Pankajbhai Koteja, the appellants-accused made assault upon him and thereby committed the offence as alleged. 12. In the present case, this Court is required to scrutinize the evidence to ascertain as to whether there is proper, reliable and cogent evidence beyond reasonable doubt to confirm the conviction or sentence awarded by learned trial Court. If there is no such evidence on record, in that event, the conviction cannot be sustained as the onus lies on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 13. Considering the above circumstances, it appears that appellants were facing charge of Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. On perusal of the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Court, more particularly para-41, it appears that the learned Sessions Court has discussed the definition and ingredients of the said provision. 13. Considering the above circumstances, it appears that appellants were facing charge of Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. On perusal of the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Court, more particularly para-41, it appears that the learned Sessions Court has discussed the definition and ingredients of the said provision. While considering the definition of grievous hurt, the learned Sessions Court has discussed that as per medical evidence and depositions of Doctors, none of the eight ingredients are satisfied in the instant case, but looking to the weapon used in commission of offence and the nature of injury and the time of treatment, the learned Sessions Court has reached to the conclusion that offence under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. This Court finds substance in the said submission canvassed by the learned advocate for the appellants with regard to convert the conviction and sentence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code instead of Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case of Prabhu v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2008) 17 SCC 381 : AIR 2009 SC 745 , while considering and discussing the definition of grievous hurt, has discussed in para nos. 10 and 11, held that sentence of grievous hurt can be passed, if the injury is defined under Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code must be strictly proved, while considering the evidence. 14. This Court is of the view that on the basis of medical evidence i.e. depositions of PW-7 and PW-8 who are the Doctors, it appears that there is no internal injury caused to the injured victim. Considering the evidence of aforesaid both the Doctors and considering the definition of grievous hurt as defined under Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code, this Court is of the view that conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Court under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code is required to be converted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. 15. Considering the nature of evidence on record, this Court is of the view that for the purpose of sentence under Section 324, maximum punishment prescribed is three years imprisonment and therefore, the imprisonment is required to be imposed for a period of three years. 15. Considering the nature of evidence on record, this Court is of the view that for the purpose of sentence under Section 324, maximum punishment prescribed is three years imprisonment and therefore, the imprisonment is required to be imposed for a period of three years. Accordingly conviction and sentence imposed under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code is converted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code i.e. for a period of three years instead of seven years prescribed under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. 16. This Court has also gone through the impugned judgment and order rendered by the learned Sessions Judge. On perusal of it, it appears that learned Sessions Judge has not recorded the findings based upon the evidence available on record and has not properly appreciated the evidence and recorded the conviction, which is not sustainable in law. 17. All the three appellants are real brothers. Looking to their young age and family circumstance, sentence undergone by them by now are treated as sufficient sentence and now they are released from the charges levelled against them. 18. The impugned judgment and order dated 12/01/2016 passed by learned Sessions Court, Anand in Sessions Case No. 132 of 2012 is modified to the extent that sentence of imprisonment for four years for the offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby converted into the offence under Section 324 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence undergone by the accused appellants be treated as sufficient sentence and thereby actual imprisonment the accused have already faced considered as full punishment of the sentence they have already undergone and now considering the same the appellants-accused are enlarged. The impugned judgment and order stands modified accordingly. “In view of above, the present appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 12/01/2016 passed by learned Sessions Court, Anand in Sessions Case No. 132 of 2012 is hereby modified as under:— The appellant are convicted and sentenced under Section 324 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code instead of Section 325 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Considering the conduct and mitigating circumstances of the appellants as also considering the gravity of the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, the sentence undergone by the appellants shall be treated as sufficient sentence; accordingly, none of the above mentioned appellants-accused person is required to undergo further sentence in respect of the offence in question. The appellants-accused are in jail and therefore, they are ordered to be released forthwith, if they are not required for any other offence. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial court concerned, forthwith.”