JUDGMENT S.K. Sahoo, J. - The matter is taken up through Video Conferencing. 2. The appellant Ananda Nath faced trial in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in S.T. No.50/19 of 1990 for offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code on the accusation that he attempted to commit murder of Ambika Nath (P.W.1) on 02.11.1989 at about 5.00 p.m. in village Paramanpur under Sason police station in the district of Sambalpur. The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 01.08.1990 found the appellant guilty of the offence charged and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of four years. 3. The prosecution case, as per the first information report (Ext.1) lodged by P.W.3 Mitu Nath, the husband of the injured (P.W.1) is that on 02.11.1989 in the evening hours when he returned from the paddy field, he found his wife was lying in a senseless condition sustaining injuries over her head and he came to know from his two daughters, namely, Babita Nath (P.W.5) and Bharati Nath that about half an hour prior to his time of arrival, while P.W.1 was sitting in the front doorstep, she found at that point of time that some unknown persons had put some faeces on the lock of the gate. Since previously this type of incident had been committed on two occasions, P.W.1 started abusing without naming anybody. The appellant came there with a lathi and challenged P.W.1 but P.W.1 told him that she was not taking any name. The appellant dealt two to three blows on the head of P.W.1 with the lathi he was holding for which P.W.1 sustained bleeding injuries and became senseless. When the two daughters of P.W.1 raised hullah, some of the co-villagers arrived at the spot for which the appellant left the spot with the lathi. Then P.W.1 was shifted to the village hospital, where the doctors advised the informant to take her to Sambalpur Sadar Hospital for treatment. It is further mentioned in the F.I.R. that P.W.1 had not yet got back her sense. 4. On the basis of such first information report, Sason P.S. Case No.54 of 1989 was registered on 03.11.1989 under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. It is further mentioned in the F.I.R. that P.W.1 had not yet got back her sense. 4. On the basis of such first information report, Sason P.S. Case No.54 of 1989 was registered on 03.11.1989 under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. P.W.10 was the officer in-charge of Sason police station, who took up investigation of the case and during course of investigation, he examined the witnesses, visited the spot, seized blood stained earth from the spot and on search of the house of the appellant, he seized one blood stained lathi and then issued requisition to the Medical Officer, Paramanpur dispensary, who attended the injured. He also produced the seized weapon of offence before the Medical Officer, Paramanpur dispensary for his examination and opinion and the queries were also made to the Medical Officer, District Headquarters Hospital, Sambalpur. The appellant surrendered in Court on 28.11.1989. P.W.10 prepared the spot map and sent the seized soaked soil and seized lathi to the Deputy Director, Chemical Examiner, R.F.S.L., Sambalpur for examination and opinion and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellant. 5. After submission of charge sheet, the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial after observing due committal procedure where the learned trial Court charged the appellant under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code on 19.06.1990 and since the appellant refuted the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the sessions trial procedure was resorted to prosecute him and establish his guilt. 6. During course of trial, the prosecution examined ten witnesses. P.W.1 Smt. Ambika Nath is the injured in the case and she stated that the appellant assaulted her with lathi (M.O.I) on her head while she was sitting in front of her house for which she fell down and lost her sense. P.W.2 Smt. Patra Nath is the neighbour of the informant and an eye witness to the occurrence. She narrated the incident and the manner in which the appellant dealt lathi blows on the head of P.W.1. P.W.3 Mitu Nath is the husband of the injured P.W.1, who is the informant in the case. He stated to have heard about the incident of assault on his wife from his daughters and other neighbours. She narrated the incident and the manner in which the appellant dealt lathi blows on the head of P.W.1. P.W.3 Mitu Nath is the husband of the injured P.W.1, who is the informant in the case. He stated to have heard about the incident of assault on his wife from his daughters and other neighbours. He along with others took P.W.1 to Paramanpur dispensary and then as per the advice of the doctor, he shifted his wife to District Headquarters Hospital, Sambalpur and thereafter, he came to the police station and lodged the first information report. P.W.4 Bihari Nath is a seizure witness in respect of lathi (M.O.I) and some blood stained earth under seizure list Ext.2 and Ext.3 respectively. P.W.5 Babita Nath is the daughter of the informant and she is also an eye witness to the occurrence. P.W.6 Dr. Mohan Pradhan attached to D.H.H., Sambalpur examined P.W.1 on being referred by the doctor of Paramanpur dispensary and stated that as per the X-ray report, the patient had no bony injury and all the injuries were simple in nature. P.W.7 Suresh Kumar Sahoo was the Revenue Inspector who prepared the spot map (Ext.5) as per the police requisition. P.W.8 Dr. Dinakrushna Panda was the Medical Officer of Paramanpur Dispensary who examined P.W.1 on police requisition and found three injuries on her person. He found the patient in a semi conscious state and referred her to the District Headquarters Hospital, Sambalpur. He also stated that all the injuries might have been caused by a blunt weapon like lathi (M.O.I) and proved his report Ext.6. P.W.9 Brundaban Choudhury was the A.S.I. of Police, Sason Police Station who received the written report of the informant through the Gramarakhi and in the absence of the O.I.C., he treated the report as F.I.R. and registered the same. P.W.10 Kunja Bihari Pani was the officer in-charge of Sason Police Station who is the investigating officer in the case. The prosecution proved seven documents. Ext.1 is the F.I.R., Ext. 2 and Ext.3 are the seizure lists, Ext.4 is the X-ray report of P.W.1, Ext.5 is the spot map, Ext.6 injury report of examination of P.W.1 and Ext.7 is the chemical examination report. The prosecution also proved one material object. M.O.I is the lathi. 7. The prosecution proved seven documents. Ext.1 is the F.I.R., Ext. 2 and Ext.3 are the seizure lists, Ext.4 is the X-ray report of P.W.1, Ext.5 is the spot map, Ext.6 injury report of examination of P.W.1 and Ext.7 is the chemical examination report. The prosecution also proved one material object. M.O.I is the lathi. 7. The defence plea of the appellant was that on the date of occurrence, P.W.1 abused him in filthy language and when he came and asked P.W.1 about such abuse, she came running towards him to assault him and in that process, she fell down on a stone and sustained injuries. 8. The learned trial Court after assessing the evidence on record has been pleased to disbelieve the defence plea that P.W.1 fell down on the ground and sustained injuries, rather it was held that the medical evidence is quite consistent with the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.5. Learned trial Court further held that the appellant might not have the intention to cause the death of P.W.1 but he had reason to believe that by giving successive blows with a lathi on the head of P.W.1, it might cause injuries which would be fatal in nature and in ordinary course she might die. Accordingly, the learned trial Court found the appellant guilty under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. Since nobody appeared on behalf of the appellant to argue the matter and it is a thirty one years old appeal, Mr. V. Narasingh, was appointed as Amicus Curiae. He was supplied with the paper book and given time to prepare the case. He placed the evidence of the witnesses and also the impugned judgment. While assailing the impugned judgment and order of conviction, he argued that the witnesses are interested and the doctors evidence indicates that the injuries are simple in nature and in view of the nature of evidence adduced by the prosecution and the medical evidence, it cannot be said that the ingredients of the offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code are attracted and it might at best be a case under section 324 of theIndian Penal Code. He further submitted that since the appellant has remained in custody for sometime while the case was under investigation as well as after conviction and the total period of incarceration was for a period more than one month, therefore, while altering the conviction to one under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, the sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that the injured (P.W.1) has stated in detail as to how the occurrence had taken place and her evidence has not at all been shaken in the cross-examination and the ocular testimony of eye witnesses so also the injured gets corroboration from the medical evidence given by the doctors P.W.6 and P.W.8 and since the blows were given with a lathi on a vital part of the body like head, it cannot be said that the learned trial Court has committed any illegality in convicting the appellant under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 10. Adverting to the contentions raised by the learned counsel, it appears that the star witness on behalf of the prosecution is none else than P.W.1 Ambika Nath. She stated in her evidence that on the date of occurrence, she found somebody had committed mischief in putting faeces in the lock for which she started abusing and at that time, the appellant came and challenged her and dealt strokes on her head with a lathi for which she lost her sense and she regained her sense in the hospital. In the cross-examination, she stated that P.W.2 and P.W.5 were present when she was talking with the appellant and she put her hands on the back of her head and tried to escape and the appellant gave successive blows with the lathi on her head. She further stated that the appellant gave strokes on her head with force with the lathi and that she did not sustain any injury on other portion of her body and that she regained her sense in the District Headquarters Hospital at Sambalpur. She admitted that she had lodged a report against the appellant in the police station six months prior to the occurrence alleging that the appellant gave poison in the rice pot. Therefore, nothing has been brought out in her cross-examination to disbelieve her evidence. She admitted that she had lodged a report against the appellant in the police station six months prior to the occurrence alleging that the appellant gave poison in the rice pot. Therefore, nothing has been brought out in her cross-examination to disbelieve her evidence. Her evidence gets corroboration from the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.5 who have also stated that the appellant dealt lathi blows on the head of P.W.1. P.W.3 is the informant in the case who stated that when he returned from the paddy field, he found P.W.1 was lying in front of his house with bleeding injuries on her head and the occurrence was reported to him by P.W.2 and others and then he along with others shifted the injured to the hospital at Paramanpur. The evidence of other eye witnesses i.e. P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.5 have also not been shaken in the cross-examination and therefore, the evidence of all the eye witnesses combined together clearly establish that on the date of occurrence the appellant assaulted P.W.1 with a lathi on her head for which she sustained injuries. Coming to the evidence of the doctor (P.W.8), he stated to have examined P.W.1 on 02.11.1989 at Paramanpur Dispensary on police requisition and noticed the following injuries:- (i) One lacerated injury with bruise around it 2' long scalp deep, it was on the head (on the occipital region), simple in nature and the wound was bleeding. (ii) Lacerated injury with bruise around 1 1/2' long scalp deep above 2' below of injury no.1 on back of the head, simple in nature and the wound was bleeding. (iii) Lacerated injury 1/2" long, skin deep about 1/2" lateral to injury no.2, simple in nature and was bleeding. P.W.8 stated that there was no fracture on the skull of P.W.1 and the patient was semi conscious and she was referred to the District Headquarters Hospital at Sambalpur. He further stated that all the injuries were possible by lathi (M.O.I). He proved his report Ext.6. In the cross-examination, P.W.8 stated that the injuries were possible if the injured fell on a rough surface with her face upward and in case the head is covered with hands particularly the occipital region, then injury no.1 is not possible whereas the injuries nos.2 and 3 are possible. He proved his report Ext.6. In the cross-examination, P.W.8 stated that the injuries were possible if the injured fell on a rough surface with her face upward and in case the head is covered with hands particularly the occipital region, then injury no.1 is not possible whereas the injuries nos.2 and 3 are possible. This question was put to the doctor as P.W.1 stated that when the appellant dealt the blows with force, she put her hands on the back of her head and tried to escape but the appellant gave successive blows with the lathi on her head. The other doctor (P.W.6) stated that as per the X-ray report, the patient had no bony injury and all the injuries were simple in nature as per his report Ext.4. Therefore, on the basis of the evidence of the doctors i.e. P.W.8 and P.W.6, it is established that all the three injuries sustained by P.W.1 were simple in nature and there was no fracture of skull and there was no bony injury. 11. It is settled principles of law that to justify a conviction under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should be inflicted. The nature of injury actually caused very often gives considerable assistance in coming to a finding relating to the intention of the accused. However, such intention can also be deduced from other circumstances without even any reference to the actual wounds. It is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim of the assault should be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the person assaulted. The Court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section. (Ref: A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 305, State of Maharashtra -Vrs.- Balaram Bama Patil). In case of Rekha Mandal -Vrs.- State of Bihar reported in 1968 (Vol.8) Supreme Court Decisions 208 wherein seventeen injuries consisting of incised and punctured wounds were caused on the injured by different weapons such as farsa, spear and lathi and none of the injuries was grievous in nature and only two of them were located on the head and neck, it was held as follows:- "2..... Medical evidence did not disclose that any of the injuries was cumulatively dangerous to life and the question therefore is whether in these circumstances, it could be held that the offence disclosed was one under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. That section requires that the act must be done with such intention or knowledge or under such circumstances that if death be caused by that act, the offence of murder will emerge." The Honble Supreme Court in that case altered the conviction from one under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code to section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. In view of the nature of evidence available on record, the nature of injuries sustained by P.W.1, which were opined by the two doctors to be simple in nature and absence of any other medial document from any hospital or any material to show the after effects of such injuries, I am of the considered opinion that the conviction of the appellant under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable in the eye of law and in my humble opinion, the case squarely falls within the ambit of section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant is altered from section 307 of the Indian Penal Code to one under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. It seems that the appellant surrendered in the Court below at the time of investigation of the case on 28.11.1989 and he was released on bail on 22.12.1989 and after the learned trial Court passed the impugned judgment, he was taken into custody on 01.08.1990 and he was granted bail by this Court on 08.08.1990 but after furnishing bail bond, he was released from custody on 14.08.1990 and therefore, he has remained in custody for more than a month. Since the appellant was a young boy at the time of occurrence and in the meantime more than thirty one years have elapsed, while altering the conviction to one under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, I direct that the sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed in part. Before parting with the case, I would like to put on record my appreciation to Mr. V. Narasingh, the learned Amicus Curiae for rendering his valuable help and assistance towards arriving at the decision above mentioned. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed in part. Before parting with the case, I would like to put on record my appreciation to Mr. V. Narasingh, the learned Amicus Curiae for rendering his valuable help and assistance towards arriving at the decision above mentioned. The learned Amicus Curiae shall be entitled to his professional fees which is fixed at Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand).