JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The instant Criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 17.12.2003 and order of sentence dated 22.12.2003, in Sessions Trial No.86 of 2000, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Seraikella- Kharsawan at Seraikella, whereby the sole appellant, Binod Kumar has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded rigorous imprisonment for seven years. The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the sole appellant on 13.01.2004, which has been admitted on 01.04.2004 and the appellant was released on bail by suspending the sentence and since then the Criminal appeal is pending before this Hon'ble Court. 3. The prosecution case, as has been made out by the informant, Santosh Devi, in the First Information Report is that, while the informant was going to bring milk from the 'khatal', in the way to Khatal, the appellant called her, assaulted her by 'bhujali' on the head, causing bleeding injury. Subsequently the appellant attacked on the right hand of the lady (informant) causing injury. On hulla, Mantu Dubey, khatal owner and others reached there and saved the lady (informant). She was taken to Welcare Nursing Home for treatment and the accused/appellant fled away. The statement of the informant was recorded at the Hospital and thereafter she was given treatment. On the basis of the aforesaid 'fardbeyan' of Santosh Devi, informant, the Police instituted First Information Report being Adityapur P.S. Case No. 59 of 1999 (dated 02.05.1999) corresponding to G.R. No.189 of 1999 under Sections 324/307 of the Indian Penal Code, against the accused/appellant. 4. After investigation, the Police submitted charge-sheet against the accused/appellant under Section 324/307 I.P.C. The cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions vide notification dated 18.03.2000. 5. The learned trial court has framed the charge against the accused/appellant under Section 307 I.P.C. on 8th June, 2000, to which the appellant/accused pleaded innocence and thus, he was put under trial. 6. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined altogether 8 witnesses and also exhibited a number of documents in support of its case. Kartik Kumar Mohanty has been examined as P.W.1 who is a formal witness. 6. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined altogether 8 witnesses and also exhibited a number of documents in support of its case. Kartik Kumar Mohanty has been examined as P.W.1 who is a formal witness. Jai Govind Dubey has been examined as P.W.2, Sakesh Kumar Bhushan has been examined as P.W.3, Karuna Nidhi Dubey has been examined as P.W.4, Sribas Paul has been examined as P.W.5. All these witnesses (P.Ws.2 to 5) have been declared hostile by the prosecution. 7. Santosh Devi, informant-cum-victim of the case has been examined as P.W.6. She has supported the statements made in her fardbeyan and has stated that, as this appellant (Binod Kumar) was teasing her daughter, she has scolded him. For that, while she was going to bring milk from Khatal of one, Manoj Dubey, accused/appellant called her and when she stopped, she was assaulted by the appellant by iron piece (bhujali) on her head, causing bleeding injury. The accused/appellant also attacked on the right hand of the informant causing injury. As a result of this, P.W.6 fell down and thereafter Mantu Dubey and others brought her to Welcare Nursing Home for treatment, where her statement was recorded. Her husband was informed, who also came there. She (P.W.6) was treated by the Doctor, who found two injuries on the victim, (i) Incised wound on the right side of the front (head), size 6 c.m.x 2 c.m. scalp deep. (ii) Incised wound on the right elbow size 5 c.m. x 2½ c.m. Doctor has found both the injuries caused by sharp-cutting weapon. Injury no.(i) has been declared, grievous in nature whereas injury no.(ii) has been declared, simple in nature. The defence has cross-examined the lady, who is informant of this case, but nothing has been elucidated to disbelieve her testimony. Her testimony is, in consonance with, the averment made in the 'fardebyan'. Her deposition in the Court, is in consistent with the medical evidence, found by the Doctor, which has been proved and marked as Exhibit-5. There is nothing to disbelieve the testimony of the lady (P.W.6). 8. Rajendra Prasad Choudhary, husband of the victim (P.W.6), has been examined as P.W.7. He is a hearsay witness and has supported the version of the lady (P.W.6), on the point of teasing the daughter by the accused. Admittedly, this witness is a hearsay witness. 9. There is nothing to disbelieve the testimony of the lady (P.W.6). 8. Rajendra Prasad Choudhary, husband of the victim (P.W.6), has been examined as P.W.7. He is a hearsay witness and has supported the version of the lady (P.W.6), on the point of teasing the daughter by the accused. Admittedly, this witness is a hearsay witness. 9. Ram Nath Choudhary, Investigating officer of the case has been examined as P.W.8. He is the Police office, who has recorded the ‘fardbeyan’ of the lady cum victim (Santosh Devi) at Welcare Nursing Home, Gamharia, and prepared the medical requisition, in carbon copy, which has been proved and marked as Exhibit-3. He has proved the ‘fardbeyan’ as Exhibit-4 and endorsement of the officer-in-Charge, on 'fardbeyan' as Exhibit-4/1. He handed-over the investigation of the case to Sri Shailendra, Sub Inspector of Police. During cross-examination, this witness has stated, that Dr. Gopal Chandra Mahto, who examined the injured, has died during pendency of the case. This witness has categorically stated, that he has seen the blood-stained cloth of the lady, who was in an injured condition and brought by Mantu Dubey, the khatal owner, for her treatment. This witness has proved the injury report written by Dr. Gopal Chandra Mahto (now dead) and proved the same as Exhibit-5. Nothing has been elucidated from the cross-examination by the defence. 10. After closure of the prosecution witnesses, the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 29.08.2003. Defence has not examined any witness. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Navneet Sahay assisted by learned Counsel, Mr. J.N. Upadhayay has submitted, that investigating officer of this case has not been examined. The daughter of the victim has also not been examined and as such, serious prejudice has been caused with regard to cause of occurrence and the manner of occurrence. Learned counsel in support of his submission, has submitted, that the independent witnesses, who are P.W.2 to P.W.5, have not supported the prosecution case and thus, were declared hostile by the prosecution. Learned counsel in support of his submission, has submitted, that the independent witnesses, who are P.W.2 to P.W.5, have not supported the prosecution case and thus, were declared hostile by the prosecution. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that although the Doctor has found injury no.1, which was on the head of the informant to be grievous in nature, but from perusal of Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code, the said injury cannot be said to be grievous in nature and as such, the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of the Indian penal Code cannot sustain in the eyes of law. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the appellant was young boy at the time of occurrence and he remained in custody approximately for one year, as such, period already undergone by the appellant during trial and pendency of this Criminal Appeal be set off. 13. Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently submitted, that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as the learned trial Court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, on the basis of the materials available on record and from the perusal of the impugned judgment, learned trial Court has categorically stated that the evidence of P.W.6, is free from any infirmity and there is no reason, for the learned trial Court to accept, that the informant has falsely implicated the accused in this case. Her evidence seems to be consistent and it also appears, that her statement was recorded by the Police without any delay. There is no reason to believe that the injured will falsely implicate a person and in turn, free the real assailant to go free. The evidence of the informant (P.W.6) has been supported by her husband. From the evidence of P.W.7 (Rajendra Prasad Choudhary), so far the reason of occurrence is concerned, this accused/appellant used to tease the daughter of the informant and no prejudice has been caused because of the non-examination of the Investigating Officer, as the 1st Police officer, who has recorded the statement of the victim by P.W.8 (Ram Nath Choudhary) has been examined and nothing has been elucidated by the defence to disbelieve the prosecution case. 14. 14. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that considering the materials available on record and the quantum of punishment, it is true that grievous hurt, as has been explained under Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code does not apply, but has fairly submitted, that there is no reason for this Court to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code reads 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 of 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 endagers 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. 15. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Navneet Sahay assisted by learned counsel, Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay and Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and on perusal of the records, such as, First Information Report, fardbeyan, deposition of the witnesses and the exhibits, it appears that lady (P.W.6-informant) has been assaulted by iron weapon, on her head and hand, although the Doctor has found injury, grievous in nature, but Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code (as mentioned above), which define grievous hurt in 8 categories, none of the categories disclosed about, such injury to be grievous in nature. The evidence of the victim (P.W.6-informant) coupled with the evidence of her husband and the P.W.8 (Police officer), who has recorded the fardbeyan, are in consistent with the injury report, which has been marked as Exhibit-5 in this case and as such, instead of convicting the appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, this Court convicts the appellant under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and awards rigorous imprisonment for one year and six months with a fine of Rs.15,000/- which would be payable to the victim, Santosh Devi (P.W.6), within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 16. 16. The period already undergone by the appellant, will be set off from the period of one year and six months. 17. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed with modification in the sentence, as aforesaid. 18. The appellant, Binod Kumar is directed to surrender before the court below to undergo rest of the sentence, failing which, the learned trial court will take all possible steps for securing his presence to serve out rest of his sentence. 19. Let L.C.R. be sent to the court concerned along with a copy of this judgment for necessary action.