( 1 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has confined his argument only to the extent that in view of the evidence on record, the conviction of appellant Surajmal under Sec. 326, IPC cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. At the most, the evidenqe discloses the offence under Section 324, IPC. Learned counsel argued that according to injured himself, appellant surajmal inflicted one gandasi blow on his head, whereas the injury report discloses two injuries, one on forehead and another on occipital and parietal region, with fracture of parietal bone. Both the injuries have been stated to be grievous in nature. In this background, learned counsel contended that there is no evidence to show as to which of those two injuries was given by appellant. In support of his argument, learned counsel, has relied upon a decision of the Apex court in Ram Lal v. Delhi Administration (AIR 1972 SC 2462 : (1973 Cri LJ 17), wherein their Lordships have observed as under : since the evidence clearly discloses that two lathi blows had been given on the head and there is no evidence which of these two was given by the appellant, the benefit of doubt must go to him. He may have given the f