The nature of injuries and its correlation to the offense under Section 307 IPC influenced the court's decision to convert the conviction to one under Section 324 IPC.

Anjana Prakash, J.

1. The Appellant has been convicted under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to RI for seven years by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Purnia in Sessions Trial No. 304 of 1990/Tr. No. 189/1992 by a judgment dated 20.07.1995.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 02.02.1989 when the informant on hearing outcry of the injured Radha Kant Bhagat went to the place of occurrence he found the Appellant was assaulting Radha Kant Bhagat and when the wife and his son intervened they were also variously assaulted with Garasa.

3. During trial the prosecution in all examined four witnesses out of whom P.W. 1 is an injured, P.W. 2 is the mother of P.W. 1 and also injured whereas P.W. 3 is the father of P.W. 1 and husband of P.W. 2 and also injured. P.W. 4 is the Doctor who examined the injured. The informant has not been examined in the present case.

4. From the evidence of the Doctor, I find that he had noted three injuries on the person of the P.W. 1 all of which were simple in nature. Similarly three injuries on the person of P.W. 3 were found simple and only grievous injury was found which was on the right thumb. P.W. 2 had also allegedly sustained two injuries both of which were simple in nature. From the evidence of the Doctor I also find that even though three injuries have sustained on vital parts but all the three were simple in nature and therefore it is difficult to uphold the conviction of the Appellant under Section 307 IPC.

5. However, on going through the evidence of three material witnesses the prosecution has been able to prove its case that in fact the Appellant had assaulted them caused and such injuries which were corroborated by P.W. 4. In the result, the appeal is dismissed but by P.W. 4. In the result, the appeal is dismissed but conviction of the Appellant is converted to one under Section 324 IPC and he is sentenced to a period already undergone during trial.

6. The appeal is dismissed with the modification as aforesaid.