JUDGMENT : 1. By this appeal, the appellant has challenged judgment and order dated 21.06.2004 whereby he has been convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years, by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur (trial Court) in Sessions Trial No. 76 of 1999. 2. The prosecution case was that on 12.03.1998 at about 8.30 p.m. one Raju Bokde (injured victim) PW3 applied colour on the festival of Holi to the son of the appellant, a child aged about 5 years and this resulted in altercation between the appellant and the said injured victim PW3. On the next day i.e. on 13.03.1998 when the said Raju Bokde PW3 was standing in front of his house at about 10.30 a.m., the appellant came at the spot and inflicted a single blow by means of sharp weapon on the abdomen of the said PW3 resulting in bleeding injury. The friends and eyewitnesses to the incident then took the injured PW3 for treatment to the Government Medical College and Hospital at Nagpur. On the basis of the statement given by the injured PW3, a first information report (FIR) was registered against the appellant for offence punishable under 324 of the IPC i.e. voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon or means. 3. The investigating officer in the present case recorded statements of eyewitnesses PW2 on 15.03.1998, PW5 on 17.03.1998 and PW4 on 06.05.1998. The weapon of assault, being a knife, was recovered and it was sent for chemical analysis. An injury certificate pertaining to the injury suffered by the said PW3 was also obtained and placed on record. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses. The material witnesses were PW3 the injured victim, PWs 2,4 and 5 eyewitnesses to the incident, PW8 and PW11 the Doctors who examined and treated the injured victim and the investigating officer PW6. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved its case against the appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and he stood convicted and sentenced in the aforesaid manner. It is relevant that while the FIR was registered under Section 324 of the IPC, charge against the appellant was framed under Section 307 of the IPC. 5. Mr. It is relevant that while the FIR was registered under Section 324 of the IPC, charge against the appellant was framed under Section 307 of the IPC. 5. Mr. A.M. Jaltare, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that the evidence of the alleged eyewitnesses was not trustworthy, particularly when their statements had been recorded after some delay. It was also contended that the nature of injury in the present case was such that its dimensions did not match with the weapon of assault i.e. the knife that was recovered in the present case. On this basis, it was contended that the statements given by the Doctors mechanically that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, could not have been relied upon and that at worst, in the present case, the appellant could be held liable for having caused hurt by sharp weapon to the injured victim. On this basis, it was contended that the conviction could be altered from Section 307 to Section 324 of the IPC. Reliance was placed on judgments of this Court in the case of Santosh Gana Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra – 2014 ALL MR (Cri) 4787, Deorao Motiram Sakharkar vs. State of Maharashtra – 2017 ALL MR (Cri) 1809 and judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar @ Babla vs. State of Punjab – 2016 ALL SCR (Cri) 942. 6. On the other hand, Mrs. Swati Kolhe, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the respondent-State submitted that in the present case, a serious injury had been inflicted on the abdomen of the injured victim PW3 by the appellant and this was proved by the said witness, as also three eyewitnesses to the incident. It was submitted that the recovery of the knife was proved and the evidence of the Doctors PW8 and PW11 clearly proved that the appellant had been correctly convicted and sentenced by the trial Court under Section 307 of the IPC. It was submitted that the nature of injury was such that it could be classified only as a grievous injury and not as hurt as defined under Section 319 of the IPC. On this basis, it was submitted that the contention raised on behalf of the appellant for alteration of conviction and sentence was not justified. It was submitted that the nature of injury was such that it could be classified only as a grievous injury and not as hurt as defined under Section 319 of the IPC. On this basis, it was submitted that the contention raised on behalf of the appellant for alteration of conviction and sentence was not justified. Reliance was placed on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Balarm Bama Patil – (1983) 2 SCC 28 . 7. In view of the fact that there were three eyewitnesses and an injured victim who deposed in favour of the prosecution case and the injured victim PW3 had indeed suffered injury, the contention raised on behalf of the appellant that there was insufficient evidence to prove occurrence of such an incident, is not sustainable. The evidence of the injured victim and eyewitnesses is consistent as regards the manner in which the injury was inflicted by the appellant on injured victim PW3. Nothing has been brought out in the cross-examination of these witnesses and, therefore, to that extent, the contention raised on behalf of the appellant cannot be accepted. 8. Therefore, the only question that arises for determination in this appeal is that even if it is accepted that the appellant had indeed inflicted injury on the injured victim PW3, whether the facts and circumstances of the present case justified conviction under Section 307 of the IPC. 9. In order to support the contentions that only an offence under Section 324 of the IPC was made out, the learned counsel for the appellant placed emphasis on Exh.69 i.e. the report regarding examination of the weapon in the present case. The said document at Exh.69 shows that the weapon was a knife having length of 11 ½ cm and breadth of 2 cm and width of 0.2 cm with a handle. 10. The next document relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant was the injury report at Exh.47, which noted that there was a stab wound of ½ cm X ½ cm, also referring the surgical repair of the injury by the Doctor. 10. The next document relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant was the injury report at Exh.47, which noted that there was a stab wound of ½ cm X ½ cm, also referring the surgical repair of the injury by the Doctor. On the basis of the said two documents, it was contended that even if it was accepted that the aforesaid weapon i.e. knife was used by the appellant to inflict single injury on the injured victim PW3, dimensions of the injury clearly demonstrated that the knife was not used with extreme force. 11. The aforesaid documents when read with the evidence of the Doctor PW8 and PW11 do show that while the breadth of the knife recorded in Exh.69 was 2 cm, the dimensions of the injury were only ½ cm X ½ cm. The evidence of the Doctors shows that such an injury could have been inflicted by a Gupti. The injured victim PW3 in his evidence has also stated that the appellant had inflicted injury on his abdomen but he could not tell as to whether the said weapon was knife or Gupti. All that the injured victim stated was that the appellant had assaulted by means of a sharp weapon. The description of the knife at Exh.69 clearly shows that if it was indeed used with extreme force, the injury would be certainly larger than ½ cm X ½ cm. This is because the breadth of the knife has been specifically stated as 2 cm and its length as 11 ½ cm. In this backdrop, there appears to be substance in the contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the statements made by the two doctors PW8 and PW11 in their evidence that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, were statements made in a mechanical manner without there being any substantial support of other material or evidence on record. This contention raised on behalf of the appellant was vehemently opposed by the learned APP, pointing out that the record demonstrated that the injured had to undergo surgery and he remained in hospital for about 12 days for treatment. According to the learned APP the said injury inflicted by the appellant fell in the category of grievous hurt and it could not be termed to be hurt as defined under Section 319 of the IPC. According to the learned APP the said injury inflicted by the appellant fell in the category of grievous hurt and it could not be termed to be hurt as defined under Section 319 of the IPC. A perusal of the document at Exh.69 (description of weapon) and Exh.47 (injury report) read with the evidence of the Doctors PW8 and PW11 shows that the appellant inflicted only a single injury on the abdomen of the victim PW3 and that force applied while inflicting the said injury resulted in only an injury of ½ cm X ½ cm. This nature of injury could certainly be classified as hurt under Section 319 of the IPC, which reads as follows:- “Section 319 – Hurt- Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.” Section 324 of the IPC reads as follows: - “Section 324 – Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means- Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shotting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.” 12. In the judgment in the case of Santosh Thakur vs. The State of Maharashtra (supra), this Court dealt with a situation where injury had been inflicted on the victim. Yet, this Court classified offence in the said case under Section 324 of the IPC. In that case also, the injured person had been hospitalized for 11 days. In the case of Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Punjab (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court took into consideration injuries caused on the head of the victim having been dimensions of 2.5 cm X 0.25 cm inflicted by a sword and yet concluded that the offence could be converted from Section 307 of the IPC to one under Section 324 of the IPC. In the case of Deorao Motiram Sakharkar vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), this Court found that the conviction of the accused under Section 307 of the IPC could be converted to an offence under Section 324 of the IPC, despite one of the Doctors opining that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 13. Applying the said precedents to the facts of the present case, in the light of the aforesaid document at Exhs. 69 and 47, read with the medical evidence, it appears that the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court in the present case against the appellant under Section 307 of the IPC is not sustainable. 14. There is no doubt that the aforesaid injury was indeed inflicted by the appellant and that, therefore, he is liable to be punished for the same. But, the evidence on record and the facts and circumstances of the present case show that ends of justice would be met by altering the conviction of the appellant from Section 307 of the IPC to Section 324 of the IPC in the present case. It is also relevant that the incident in the present case took place more than 20 years ago i.e. on 13.03.1998 and the appellant was in jail for a period of about six months from the time when he was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court, till he was granted bail by this Court. 15. Considering the fact that the incident in the present case took place more than 20 years ago and the appellant is held to be entitled for alteration of conviction to Section 324 of the IPC, this appeal is disposed of in the following terms: (i) The present appeal is partly allowed and the conviction of the appellant is altered from Section 307 of the IPC to Section 324 of the IPC. (ii) The appellant, upon conviction under Section 324 of the IPC, is sentenced to suffer the period of imprisonment already undergone i.e. six months. (iii) In the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is liable to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh). He is entitled to adjustment of fine amount that he has already paid as per the direction given in the impugned judgment and order. (iii) In the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is liable to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh). He is entitled to adjustment of fine amount that he has already paid as per the direction given in the impugned judgment and order. If the appellant fails to deposit the said fine amount within a period of eight weeks from today, he shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. (iv) Upon deposit of such fine amount, it shall be made over to the injured victim PW3 Raju Vitthalrao Bokde as compensation. 16. Appeal is disposed of in above terms.