IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 1 of 1995. Date of decision: 29.10.2008 State of H.P. …. Appellant. Vs. Darshan Kumar. ….. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant-State: Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy.Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. Per Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) This appeal for enhancement of sentence has been filed by the State. Since, we are only concerned the question of enhancement of sentence, it is not necessary to give detailed facts of the case. It would be sufficient to mention that the respondent (here-in-after referred to as the accused) was convicted under Sections 323 and 326 IPC and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and pay fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 326 IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC. The accused filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge. The same was decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una on 24th March, 1994. On merits, the appeal was rejected but on the question of sentence the learned lower Appellate Court altered the sentence to one of imprisonment till rising of the Court and fine of Rs.3000/-. The manner in which the sentence has been altered is not at all proper. The petitioner had been convicted for two offences and sentenced was passed by the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment yes. learned trial Court in respect of both the offences. The Appellate Court without giving any specific finding as to the alteration of the conviction has passed one sentence only. Such composite sentence could not have been passed. However, keeping in view the facts of the case, we find that the sentence imposed by the learned lower Appellate Court calls for no interference at this belated stage, 20 years after the occurrence took place. We are also of the considered view that the accused should not have been convicted under Section 326 IPC. In the Medico Legal Certificate Ext.PW-3/B, injury No.1 has been stated to be grievous(dangerous). Section 320 describes grievous hurt as follows:- “Grievous hurt.- The following kinds of hurt only are designated as “grievous”: First.- Emasculation. Secondly.- Permanent privation of the sight of either eye. Thirdly.- Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear. Fourthly.- Privation of any member or joint. Fifthly.- Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint. Sixthly.- Permanent disfiguration of the heard or face. Seventhly.- Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth. Eighthly.- Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.” A person can be convicted for causing grievous hurt only if the injury falls under the said Section. In the present case, the prosecution relies on clause ‘eighthly’. From the perusal of the Medico Legal Certificate, we find that at that stage the doctor had not opined that the injury was such as to endanger human life. True it may be that during cross-examination, she has stated that the injury was dangerous to life but this was an improvement made on the original medical certificate which does not contain such a stipulation. Therefore, the respondent should have been sentenced only under Section 324 IPC. We, therefore, alter the conviction to one under Section 323/324 IPC and maintain the sentenced imposed upon by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid term. (Deepak Gupta), J. October 29, 2008 (V.K.Ahuja), J. ™