The main legal point established is that the seriousness of the injuries, the evidence presented, and the defendant's intent to cause harm are crucial factors in determining the appropriate conviction under the relevant sections of the IPC.

Dharnidhar Jha, J.-The present appeal has been preferred by the solitary appellant who was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge VIII, Patna in S.T. No. 64 of 1992 after being charged with committing offences under Sections 307/34 as also Section 307, IPC By judgment dated 17.4.1998. the appellant was acquitted of the charges under Sections 307 or Sections 307/34. IPC but was held guilty of committing offence under Section 324. IPC in the alternative and was directed to suffer R1 for one year.

2. The prosecution case is contained in the fardbeyan of PW 5 Lal Babu Singh. a Class IV employee of the Bihar Legislative Council, who stated that he was shifting his household effects from the official quarter No. 111. Shashtri Nagar. Patna into the house of one Ramanand Yadav and after having transported all his belongings, he was going to his new tenanted house on foot and when he had reached a particular place in Shashtri Nagar, two boys. Namely, the present appellant and his brother caught hold of the informant and this appellant gave blows on his person with chhura. The blows fell on belly, left scapula and back of neck as also on his left hand. The informant bled profusely and fell down on the ground where he was brought by one Jha Ji by rickshaw into the emergency' ward of PMCH where he was admitted for treatment and where he gave his fardbeyan (Ext.3).

3. So far as the reason for the occurrence was concerned, it was stated by PW 5 that on 8.1.1988. i.e., the previous day he was sitting in one medicine shop of his friend who asked him to bring some medicines for one of the purchasers from a neighbouring shop and when he was coming after purchasing the required medicines, this appellant wanted to know as to where did the informant live, to which the informant replied that the appellant had nothing to do with it and that prompted brandishing a chhura by the appellant and the situation could be averted by the intervention of the companions of the appellant and others. The informant stated that on that very account, he had been brutalized by the appellant badly.

4. The I.O. was not examined nor the doctor. who attended first on the injured PW 5 bur it appears from the discharge slips. like, Ext. 2 and 2/1 that the injury which was caused to the informant PW 5 had ultimately resulted in aneurysm with radial nerve injury which was operated upon by Army Medical Hospital and the patient PW 5 was advised physiotherapy and some medicines. While admitting the injured PW 5 Dr. Lt. R. K. Singh, who was issuing the admission slip (Ext. 2) was noting as follows:

"An old case of stab injury over posterior aspect of Rt. Upper arm. He developed a swelling on axilla after it. He was operated in March. After the operation he has developed paralysis of biceps. triceps and flexons and extension of forearm. Brachial plexus injury."

5. Another discharge slip was marked 'X' for identification, but in my view it was wrong because discharge slips are known to be issued in compliance to a rule in discharge of public duties by a public servant. like, the doctor who is discharging his duties in the hospital. This discharge slip was issued by Rajendra Medical College Hospital. Ranchi where the informant was referred from PMCH and that also indicates that he sustained some injuries on left brachial artery and there was a swelling on his left axilla with weakness in extension of his forearm. The informant was referred to the surgical ward of RMCH where he was operated upon as may appear from admission slip (Ext. 2). Thus, even if the doctor was not examined, who was dead as per paragraph 18 of the judgment. there was sufficient material by way of medical report to indicate that PW 5 had been stabbed in such a way as to be virtually rendered a handicap.

6. The evidence of witnesses comprised of PW I Pyare Ram, who was declared hostile along with PW 2 Gauri Shankar MandaI, who also was not supporting the prosecution story. So far as PW 3 Ram Pravesh