Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.330 of 1997 **** Against the judgment and order, dated 12.12.1997, passed by Sri Upendra Narain Yadav, Additional District and Sessions Judge, X, Patna, in S. Tr. No. 868 of 1992 **** Jai Prakash Singh @ Jai Prakash Kumar @ Mister, wrongly typed in place of Master, sonof Sri Ram Lakshan Singh, resident of village Tajpur, P.S. Maner, district Patna .. Appellant Versus The State Of Bihar .. Respondent **** For the Appellant .. Mr. B Ishnu Kant Dubey, Adv. For the Respondent .. Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, APP **** P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD Gopal Prasad, J. Heard the counsel for the appellant and the State. 2. The appellant has been convicted under Section 307 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. 3. The prosecution case as alleged by Kameshwar Sao that Jai Prakash Singh gave a fasuli blow on his head, shoulder, chest and thigh. On the fardbeyan the first information report lodged and after investigation charge sheet submitted, cognizance taken and the case committed to the Court of sessions. 2 4. After considering the oral and documentary evidence the order of conviction passed as stated above. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the victim was treated in private clinic. There is no suggestion that the scuffle is for non-payment of the down fee. However, there are four injuries found on the person of the victim and three injuries have been shown to be grievous does not confirm to Section 320 of the Penal Code evidence that injuries are dangerous to attract Section 307 of the Penal Code. However, the injuries found on the informant is as follows: (i) Incised wound 6” x ½” bone deep on the right side scalp in partial bone area bleeding professedly (ii) Incised wound 3” x ½” chest right shoulder in dentifined region bleeding. (iii) Incised wound 4” x ½” x 1” on right pactonel region on chest, major point of cut bleedings profudesly, surgical comphsems the wound (iv) Incised wound 1” x linem x skin deep on right buttock 6. Injuries (i), (ii) and (iii) are shown to be grievous, which does not confirm to Section 320 of the Penal Code and there is no repetition. 7. Hence, taking into consideration the fact that the injuries pointed out does not show any fracture or loss of part to confirm Section 320 of the Penal Code to bring it in the definition of Section 320 of the Penal Code nor there is any evidence and the injuries were dangerous to life. It has been submitted that the appellant was in jail 3 after conviction for fifteen days and also remained in jail during investigation, the occurrence is of the year 1992, hence, need of justice shall meet by sentencing the appellant for the period already undergone. 8. The appeal is allowed in part. ( Gopal Prasad, J. ) The Patna High Court, The 01st day of August 2011, N.A.F.R., S.A.