JUDGMENT : Ganesh Ram Meena, J. 1. The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 17.02.1994 passed by the Court of learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, No. 3, Kota Camp, Ramganjmandi, District Kota (Rajasthan) [for short ‘the learned trial Court’] in Sessions Case No. 190/1992, whereby, the accused appellant has been convicted for the offence under section 307 IPC and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused appellant has to further undergo Six month additional Rigorous Imprisonment. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, complainant, Mohan Singh (PW 4) lodged an FIR No.78/1991 (Ex.P3) on 16.05.1991 at Police Station Ramganj Mandi, District Kota for the offence under section 307 IPC. Complainant mentioned in the FIR (Ex.P3) that at about 12 in the night his brother Bajrang Singh was sleeping on a cot outside the Chabutri and adjacent to his brother his father Amar Singh was sleeping and at some distance his maternal uncle (Mama) Karan Singh was sleeping. All of a sudden when Bajrang Singh cried then his maternal uncle (Mama), his uncle and he came outside the house. Bajrang Singh told that Gordhan Singh S/o Nawal Singh gave two blows from the knife on his stomach and his father and maternal uncle (Mama) has seen Gordhan Singh running after giving blows from the knife. The complainant further mentioned that huge blood was oozed out. Complainant further mentioned that on account of selling the wine of ‘Theka’, quarrel is going on in between them and due to this enmity Gordhan Singh with intention to kill him, gave blows from the knife. 3. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused appellant for the offences under sections 307,326 I.P.C and section 4/25 Arms Act, 1959 in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ramganjmandi. 4. The case was committed to the Court of Session for trial. The learned trial court framed the charges against the accused appellant for the offences under sections 307,326 IPC, to which they denied and opted for trial. 5. From the prosecution side, the statements of 12 witnesses were recorded and certain documents were exhibited. 6. The statement of the accused appellant was recorded under section 313 CrPC. The learned trial court framed the charges against the accused appellant for the offences under sections 307,326 IPC, to which they denied and opted for trial. 5. From the prosecution side, the statements of 12 witnesses were recorded and certain documents were exhibited. 6. The statement of the accused appellant was recorded under section 313 CrPC. The accused appellant in his statement has denied about the allegations levelled against him and deposed that he has been falsely implicated in the instant case. 7. The learned trial court vide its judgment 17.02.1994 convicted and sentenced the accused appellant for the offences as mentioned above. 8. Mr. K.K. Mehrishi, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Timan Singh, appearing for the accused appellant submitted that PW11-Surendra Mohan Mathur who had examined injured, at the first instance has not given any opinion about the nature of the injuries. Counsel submitted that PW12-Dr. Gauri Shankar Chauhan, Medical Jurist, S.R.G. Hospital, Jhalawar, who conducted X-Ray examination of injured, did not found any abnormality. Counsel also submitted that PW12-Dr. Gauri Shankar Chauhan did not give any definite opinion about the injury being dangerous to life in ordinary course of nature and he on the basis of Bed Head Ticket mentioned that two injuries were to be dangerous to life in ordinary course of nature, if timely not operated. Counsel also submitted that Dr. S.B. Bhatnagar, Junior Specialist, who as per statement of PW-12 Dr. Gauri Shankar, operated the inured has not been produced as a witness, so as to prove the operation note and in the absence of his examination, it is not established that the injury was dangerous to life in the ordinary course of nature. 9. Senior Counsel for the accused appellant also submitted that the prosecution has not proved injury reports of Nem Singh, Ram Dayal, Smt. Sarupi & Yadram according to the procedures laid down in the Evidence Act. The prosecution got these injury reports of the aforesaid injured persons, exhibited without producing the concerned doctor who had prepared them. Senior Counsel submitted that the doctor produced in the witness box has not at all stated even a single word whether he has examined these injured persons and prepared their injury reports. Senior Counsel further submitted that in absence of the evidence of a doctor, these injury reports remained legally unproven and could not be acted upon them on its face value. 10. Senior Counsel further submitted that in absence of the evidence of a doctor, these injury reports remained legally unproven and could not be acted upon them on its face value. 10. Senior Counsel for the accused appellant further submitted that as per operation note, no injury was found on lever, spleen and stomach and even there is no any injury on any vital part of body, Thus the conviction of the accused appellant under section 307 IPC is wholly unfounded and at the most the accused appellant can be convicted for the offence under section 324 IPC. 11. Counsel for the accused appellant further submitted that the alleged incident is of the year 1991, he was convicted on 17.2.1994 and since 1994 he has no criminal record, therefore, he be released for the period already undergone by him in confinement. 12. It is settled law that the past adverse conduct of the convict ought not to be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the quantum of sentence. 13. Counsel for the accused appellant in support of his submissions has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- A. Gyan Singh Vs. State, reported in (2022) 0 Supreme (Raj.) 924; B. Bhagwat Singh, Himmat, Prahlad & Govind Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & one other connected matter, reported in 1992 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 33; C. Pradeep Kumar @ Pinku Vs. State & Ors., reported in 2008 (2) WLC (Raj.) 614; D. Sua Lal Vs. The State of Rajasthan, reported in 1984 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 529; and E. Jeet Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2000 (1) R.C.C. 100. 14. Counsel for the accused appellant has also alternatively prayed that in case the conviction of the accused appellant for the offence under section 307 IPC is upheld then looking to the period of pendency of the criminal case and the age of the accused appellant, the sentence awarded to him may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 15. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the appeal and has submitted that there is no material irregularity or illegality committed by the learned trial court and keeping in view the evidence on record, the accused appellant have been rightly convicted. 16. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the accused appellant, learned Public Prosecutor and examined the material made available to the Court. 17. 16. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the accused appellant, learned Public Prosecutor and examined the material made available to the Court. 17. The main thrust of the counsel for the accused appellant is that in view of the evidence available on the record, the charge against the accused appellant for the offence under section 307 IPC is not made out and at the most the case against the accused appellant will travel upto section 324 IPC. 18. On the issue raised by the counsel for the accused appellant, the medical evidence is required to be scrutinized. 19. As per the MLR (Ex.P6) prepared on 16.05.1991, the injured Bajrang Singh sustained two injuries both stab wounds. One of the injury is above and left to umbilicus and other injury is just 1 cm. above and left to injury No.1. No opinion in regard to the injury has been mentioned in the MLR. It has also been mentioned in the MLR that the patient was conscious fit to statement. X-Ray of injured Bajrang Singh was also prepared on 16.05.1991 and the Medical Jurist after examining the X-Ray report has given the opinion that “in my opinion Radio-logically no any abnormality”. After the injured being operated, a supplementary report (Ex.P9) was submitted on 16.05.1991 wherein the Medical Jurist has given the opinion that “in my opinion according to above operative notes injuries both were dangerous to life and there is sufficient to cause death in the natural course of time if the patient was not operated in time”. 20. PW11 Dr. Surendra Mohan Mathur who has prepared the MLR was examined by the trial court. As per his version there are two stab wounds sustained by injured Bajrang Singh. He has specifically stated in the cross-examination that he has not given any opinion in regard to the injuries. 21. Dr. Gauri Shankar Chauhan was examined as PW12. The said witness has given his opinion on the basis of X-Ray report. In examination-in-chief he has specifically stated that as per the X-Ray report he has not found any abnormality. Though he has further stated that as per the operation note, both the injuries were dangerous to life which could cause death in the ordinary course of nature if the patient would not have operated in time. 22. In examination-in-chief he has specifically stated that as per the X-Ray report he has not found any abnormality. Though he has further stated that as per the operation note, both the injuries were dangerous to life which could cause death in the ordinary course of nature if the patient would not have operated in time. 22. Now the issue remains whether as per the operation note, the injuries sustained by the injured Bajrang Singh and alleged to be inflicted by the accused appellant are dangerous to life. 23. The injured was operated by Dr. B.S. Bhatnagar, Junior Specialist but Dr. Bhatnagar was not produced in evidence as a witness so as to get proved the operation note. Until and unless the operation note on the basis of which an opinion of the Medical Jurist has come out that the injuries were dangerous to life, is not sustainable. 24. On examination of the operation note it is also found that there was no injury on the lever, spleen and stomach. 25. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Bhagwat Singh, Himmat, Prahlad & Govind Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1992 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 33 has observed in paras 16 and 17 as under:- “16. One more significant infirmity, as has rightly been pointed by the learned Counsel, is that in the case at hand, the prosecution has come out with the version that Bhagwat Singh (appellant) was armed with gun & Yadram was having a country-made Katta; but from the injury reports & X-ray report of Dharam Singh it appears that the injuries found on his person was caused by a rifle and not a gun. In the presence of declination on the part of the witness, Dr. R.D. Goyal (PW 10) obviously because he was not an expert in the science of fire-arms, to state in his cross-examination about the distance from which the fire-arm was fired, the prosecution in my view, had to examine a qualified expert so as to establish on record, whether the injuries attributed to Bhagwat Singh were caused either by gun or rifle having been used at such a close distance as was being suggested in the evidence by the prosecution & in the injury report. In the presence of the circumstances, appearing on record, the evidence of an expert on the aforesaid controversy was necessary and in the absence of such an evidence, Bhagwat Singh cannot be convicted wholly upon the oral testimony and thus the impugned conviction based on an evidence which remained unfortified by an expert evidence which clinches the plank of the prosecution story, is not sustainable in the eye of law, as has rightly been Laid down by their Lordships of the Apex Court in Mohinder Singh v. State (1953 Cr. L.J. (SC) 1761). 17. The prosecution has not proved injury reports of Nem Singh, Ram Dayal, Smt. Sarupi & Yadram according to the procedure Laid down in the Evidence Act etc. The prosecution got these injury reports of the aforesaid injured persons, exhibited without producing the concerned doctor who had prepared them. The doctor produced in the witness box has not at all stated even a single word whether had he examined these injured persons and prepared their injury reports. That being so, in the absence of the evidence of a doctor, these injury reports remained legally unproved and could not be acted upon them at its face value and no aid can be taken so as to base the conviction upon the accused on the basis of the injury reports. The benefit of which also must go to the accused persons.” 26. In view of the fact that Dr. Bhatnagar who operated the injured Bajrang Singh, has not been examined and the opinion by the other doctor on the basis of the operation note that the injuries sustained by the injured are dangerous to life in nature, is not sustainable and therefore, the conviction of the accused appellant for the offence under section 307 IPC cannot be accepted. The trial court has convicted the accused appellant for the offence under section 307 IPC on the basis of evidence of PW12 Dr. Gauri Shankar Chauhan, who has stated that if the patient would not have brought within time, the death could have occurred. The finding of the trial court and conviction of the accused appellant for the offence under section 307 IPC merely on the basis of evidence of PW12 Dr. Gauri Shankar Chauhan that in the ordinary course of nature the death of the injured could have occurred if he was not brought for treatment within time. The finding of the trial court and conviction of the accused appellant for the offence under section 307 IPC merely on the basis of evidence of PW12 Dr. Gauri Shankar Chauhan that in the ordinary course of nature the death of the injured could have occurred if he was not brought for treatment within time. In a normal course if any injured is not brought for treatment in time even a small injury can lead to death, may be because of continuous bleeding. There is no evidence on the record in regard to the intention and motive of the accused appellant for inflicting such an injury which could cause death. As regards the fact of sustaining injuries by injured Bajrang Singh which has been caused by the accused appellant is proved on the basis of evidence. 27. In view of the discussions made above, the findings and the observations of the trial court in regard to conviction of the accused appellant for the offence under section 307 IPC is perverse and the charge for the offence under section 307 IPC against the accused appellant could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction of the accused appellant for the offence under section 307 IPC by the trial court is now converted for the offence under section 324 IPC. 28. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The conviction of accused appellant Gordhan Singh is altered from offence under section 307 IPC to offence under section 324 IPC. His sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 29. Record be transmitted to the court below forthwith.