The nature of the weapon used is more crucial than the form or gravity of the injury, and the absence of a medical officer's opinion or wound certificate does not necessarily prejudice the accused.

The respondent and 2 others were charge-sheeted by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Panniyankara for an offence under S. 324 read with S. 34 I.P.C.

2. P.W. 1 in the case was running a cycle shop at Kallai. There was a tailoring shop of one Chandran adjacent to the shop of P.W. 1. Some time prior to the incident in this case, there was a quarrel between Chandran and the first accused in the case. P.W. 1, who happened to be there, separated them. The first accused thereafter became inimical towards P.W. 1. On 27-8-71 at about 8 p.m. P.W. 1 was standing on the public road in front of his cycle shop. The first accused along with accused Nos. 2 and 3 who are his friends came there. The first accused had a knife in his hand. He exhorted P.W. 1 about a petition that he had filed against the accused before the police. Following this, he stabbed P.W. 1 with the knife, P.W. 1 warded off the first stab. But he was again stabbed on the left chest causing a bleeding injury. The 2nd accused caught hold of P.W. 1 and the third accused threw a glass bottle against P.W. 1. Thereafter the accused left the place. P.W. 1 was taken to the hospital. A case was registered against the accused. During trial, P.Ws. 1 to 3 and 5 were examined to prove the prosecution case, P.W. 3, however, did not support the prosecution and, therefore, was declared hostile and cross-examined. P.W. 8, Medical Officer sent Ext. P-3 to the police station wherein he stated that the injured was reported to have been stabbed on the chest by one Haridasan. The name of the first accused is Haridasan, P.W. 4 is the Head constable who investigated the case. P.W. 10, the Sub-Inspector of Police, verified the investigation and laid the charge. Relying on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the trial court convicted the first accused and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for two months and a fine of Rs. 300/-. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were, however, acquitted. In the appeal filed by the first accused before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode, the conviction was confirmed. But the sentence of imprisonment was converted to one of fine of Rs. 700/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Out of the fine, an amount of Rs. 500/- was directed to be paid to P.W. 1 by way of compensation. The first accused preferred Cri. R.P. 103 of 1975 before the Sessions Judge, Kozhikode. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision petition on the ground that there was no wound certificate to prove the nature of the injuries sustained. The court did not also choose to alter the conviction to one under S. 323 I.P.C. The State filed an appeal against the order in revision and it stood registered as Criminal Appeal No. 411 of 1976.

3. At the time of hearing the appeal, a preliminary objection was raised that the appeal itself was not maintainable. The argument was that under S. 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an appeal would lie only from an original or appellate order passed by a Court other than the High Court. The objection being well founded, the State made a motion to covert the appeal into a revision under S. 397 of the Code and it has been allowed. The scope of revision being restricted, this court is expected to examine only the correctness, legality and propriety of the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge and the regularity of the proceedings before the courts below and pass such order as are contemplated under S. 401 of the Code.

4. The contention put forward on behalf of the State is that since the trial court and the Chief Judicial Magistrate in appeal accepted the evidence tendered by the prosecution witnesses and found the accused guilty, the Sessions Judge should not have interfered with the conviction on the sole ground that there is no proper evidence that P.W. 1 had been examined by P.W. 8, the medical Officer as the certificate of such examination is not available. There is weight in the co