ORDER

This appeal is filed under Section 374 of Code of Criminal

Procedure (for short be called as “Cr.P.C.”) against the judgment dated 7.8.1999, passed by the learned Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Barwani in S.T.No.361/1998 convicting the appellant for the charges punishable under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced to undergo five years' RI with fine of Rs.3,000 and under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced to undergo three months' RI with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days'.

2. PM when complainant Bala alongwith his wife Kamala Bai and son Kalu was doing agricultural work on his field situated at village Takiyapur, appellant alongwith his wife co-accused Heeru Bai came there and started abusing filthy languages. Complainant objected, then appellant assaulted him with deadly weapon Darata on his left side of his head, due to which he fell down. Appellant again assaulted him with Darata, due to which complainant received injuries on his left elbow. Complainant's wife Kamala Bai and son Kalu tried to intervene, then appellant assaulted them with Darata and caused injuries on their hands. On the same date at about 18.15 hours complainant alongwith his wife Kamala Bai and son Kalu went to P.S., Anjad lodged the FIR (Ex.P/1) from where all of them were sent to Civil Hospital, Anjad for medical examination. Dr.Motilal Patidar medically examined the complainant and prepared MLC report (Ex.P/12). He also examined complainant's wife Kamala Bai and his son Kalu and prepared MLC report (Ex.P/10 & P/11 respectively). Complainant was referred to District Hospital, Barwani for x-ray examination, where fracture on his left parietal bone was found as per x-ray report (Ex.P/13). Appellant was arrested and his disclosure statement (Ex.P/4) was recorded and on the basis of which at his instance weapon Darata, used in the crime, was seized from his possession as per seizure memo (Ex.P/6). After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Anjad, who committed the same to the Court of

Sessions Judge, Barwani.

3. available on record framed the charges under Section 307 and 323 of IPC against the appellant. Appellant abjured guilt and prayed for trial. In his statements recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., he pleaded his false implication in the matter and has not examined any witnesses in his defense.

4. documentary evidence available on record convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 307, 323 of IPC and sentenced him as stated in para 1 of the judgment. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, appellant has preferred this appeal for setting aside the impugned judgment and discharging him from the charges framed against him.

5. appellant was acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.

6. appellant and complainant are son and father respectively. On the date of incident dispute occurred all of a sudden and as per prosecution case itself only one injury was found on vital part head of the complainant. There is nothing on record from which it can be inferred that the same was caused with an intent to commit complainant's murder. Ingredients of Section 307 of IPC do not attract in the case. Appellant and complainant have entered into compromise as shown in the order-sheet dated 28.1.2003. In view of the aforesaid conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of IPC is liable to be converted into Section 326 of IPC and his sentence be reduced to the period already undergone.

7. has opposed the prayer and submits that complainant received two injuries; one on his head and other on his elbow. Nature of injury found on his head was grievous in nature, therefore, learned trial Court has not committed error in holding the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. The