ORDER M.H. Beg, J. - The Appellant, Smt. Maq bulan, lived in the Ahata Kapur in Mohalla Ajitganj of Kanpur city. Adjacent to the quarter in which she was living is the quarter of Smt. Sampati who objected to undesirable persons visiting Smt. Maqbulan. According to Smt. Maqbulan, it was Srimati Sam-pati who used to meet undesirable persons. Both women, however, alleged that an incident took place on 18th June, 1961, as a result of an exchange of hot words between them. A complaint lodged by Smt. Sampati (P.W. l) under Sections 504 and 506 I.P.C. was pending against the Appellant when, on 22nd June, 1961, at about 2 p.m., there was an incident between the two women which gave rise to the prosecution of the Appellant on a charge for an offence u/s 307 I.P.C. The Appellant has been founti guilty and sentenced to four year's R.I. by a Civil and Session's Judge of Kanpur. 2. The prosecution allegation was that Smt. Maqbulan began to abuse Smt. Sampati, and, at a time when Smt. Sampati was opening the lock of her quarter, started inflicting injuries upon Smt. Sampati with a knife. Smt. Sampati raised a hue and cry which attracted Smt. Parwati (P.W. 4) Smt. Munni (P.W. 5) and Siya Dulare (P.W. 3) as well as Dr. Somanath Batra (P.W. 2) who saw various parts of the fight between the two women in the course of which Smt. Sampati caught hold of the hair of Smt. Maqbulan because Smt. Maqbulan had started inflicting injuries with a knife on her stomach. Smt. Sampati took a brick and hit Smt. Maqbulan on the head. Finally, Smt. Maqbulan threw her kinfe into her own quarter and rushed out and was caught near a school called "Budhpuri School" after running for some distance and taken to police station Bahuparwa where an F.I.R. was lodged on 22.5.1962 at 2. 45p.m. 3. The learned Sessions Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses depose, accepted the version of the prosecution witnesses. It may be observed that the counter version of Smt. Maqbulan, that the aggression started from the side of Smt Sampat and her supporters, was not sought to be proved by any evidence in defence although Smt. Maqbulan's own fanvil it said to reside in her quarter. It may be observed that the counter version of Smt. Maqbulan, that the aggression started from the side of Smt Sampat and her supporters, was not sought to be proved by any evidence in defence although Smt. Maqbulan's own fanvil it said to reside in her quarter. Neither Smt. Maqbulan nor anyone else on her behalf lodged any report alleging any attack upon Smt. Maqbulan. When the Investigating Officer brought Smt. Maqbulan to the place of occurrence, Smt. Maqbulan is said to have pointed out the knife (Ex.1) with which she is said to have attacked Smt. Sampati. A site plan was duly prepared and blood stained earth was taken from the place of occurrence which is shown in front of the quarter of Smt. Sampati. The blood stained clothes of Smt. Parwati were also taken into its possession by the police. This evidence, coupled with a prompt F.I.R. made by Smt. Parwati corroborates the prosecution version. 4. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses has been assailed on the ground that they could not be held to have seen the beginning of the occurrence. The statement of Dr. Batra (P.W. 2) was pointed out in particular where it is found that the two women were grappling with each other when he arrived. He seems to have arrived at a later stage than the other witnesses. He stated that he saw the throwing away of the knife by Stat Maqbulan and attended to the injuries or Smt. Sampati. He seems to have exaggerated one of the injuries on the stomach of Smt. Sampati by stating that a part of intestine or some fat had come out which he put back before bandaging the stomach. Under cross-examination, he was unable to give sufficient details. Smt. Sampati was, however, examined by Dr. Rastogi on 22-6-1962. He found four incised wound, out of which one was on the stomach, two on the left shoulder, and one on the head, and one lacerated wound on Smt. Sampati. These injuries show a determined attempt to wound and they corroborate the prosecution version that the two women were interlocked in a struggle at the time when some of the injuries were inflicted upon Smt. Sampati. They repelled the defence version given by Smt. Maqbulan that the injuries of Smt. Sampati were the result of a fall. Dr. These injuries show a determined attempt to wound and they corroborate the prosecution version that the two women were interlocked in a struggle at the time when some of the injuries were inflicted upon Smt. Sampati. They repelled the defence version given by Smt. Maqbulan that the injuries of Smt. Sampati were the result of a fall. Dr. Rastogi was specifically questioned on this matter and Stated that the injuries on the body of Smt. Sampati could not be caused by a fall, It very surprising that the doctor was so careless as not to note the time of the examination of Smt. Sampati and (sic) to mention the duration of the injuries. This, however is not sufficient to prove that there was anything suspicions about the injury report. It was not questioned on behalf of the accused that Smt. Sampati received the injuries at the time alleged. The Appellant only set up the plea that the injuries were caused by a fall which version runs completely counter to the injury report and the doctor's evidence. 5. It is true that Dr. Batra (P.W. 2) and also Siya Dulare (P.W. 3) and S(sic) Munni (P.W. 5) appeared an the score of occurrence after the two wouned had started grappling with each other. Nevertheless, the statements of these witnesses support and bear (sic) the prosecution version and not the defence version. Smt. Parwari (P.W. 4) was there from the beginning and saw the whole incident and trind to save Smt. Sampati. This version is borne out by the presence of blood on her clothes showing that she came in close contact with Smt. Sampati in trying to save her. Smt. Munni (P.W. 3) actually caught Smt. Maqbulan when the Appellant had rushed towards the Budhpuri school. The mere uncertainty in the minds of the witnesses as to whether the door of Smt. Maqbolan was bolted from outside and opened when the investigating officer at (sic) and recovered the knife from inside the room of Smt. Maqbulan and alight variations as to where the knife was actually found do not affect the credibility of the prosecution case. 6. The next contention put forward was that, in view of the nature of the injuries, the only offence made out is one punishable u/s 324 IPC and not one punishable u/s 307 IPC. 6. The next contention put forward was that, in view of the nature of the injuries, the only offence made out is one punishable u/s 324 IPC and not one punishable u/s 307 IPC. Reliance is placed upon Wazira v. Emperor (1) (1940 AWR (HC) 6) where it was held by Ismail, J.: For the application of the aforesaid section, it is riot necessary that the injury capable of causing death should have been actually inflicted. Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death he would be guilty of murder, is liable to punishment u/s 307 IPC. If the injury is actually inflicted the nature of such injury may be of considerable assistance in arriving at the finding whether the accused has the intention of causing the death of the victim. 7. It is the latter part of the observation of Ismail, J. which is relied upon by the Appellant's counsel who argues that there was no intention to cause death. In that case, there were four lathi injuries out of which three were on the head, and, although the injuries were simple, yet, they were described as dangerous though not likely to be fatal. On a consideration of all facts in the case it was found that the intention to cause death was wanting. 8. Reliance is also placed on Sarju Prasad Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1965 SC 843 . In that case, the accused had used a 'chhura' and had inflicted injuries on a vital part of the body although no vital organ of the body was injured. The size of the alleged 'chhura' and the possibility of causing of fatal injury with it had not, in their Lordships view, been established in that case. Upon the facts of that case, their Lordships had held that the intention to kill had not been proved. The size of the alleged 'chhura' and the possibility of causing of fatal injury with it had not, in their Lordships view, been established in that case. Upon the facts of that case, their Lordships had held that the intention to kill had not been proved. Their Lordships, however, pointed out that "the mere fact that the injury actually inflicted by the Appellant did not cut any vital organ of Shanker Prasad is not by itself sufficient to take the act out of the purview of Section 307 IPC." The only general proposition that could be deduced with regard to the manner in which the intention has to be gathered is that the intention which brings the case within Section 307, IPC must be inferred from the totality of all the facts and circumstances in the case which must be carefully examined. 9. In the present case, I find that there was hostility between the two women resulting in a criminal complaint against the Appellant. There was evidently some premeditation, deliberation, and preparation before the attack. It was not a case of a sudden quarrel or impulse. The knife used for the attack was a material exhibit examined by the trial court. An incised wound on the body of Smt. Sampati shows that the knife could cause a fatal injury if it had been used to cut a vital organ. The fact that it could not be so used appears to have been due to the resistance and struggle put up by Smt. Sampati and the aid which she received from Smt. Parwati, who tried to save her. In other words, if extraneous factors, outside the control of and unforeseen by the Appellant, had not intervened, death could and was likely to have been caused. It was lucky that the knife did not penetrate further in the stomach or did not cause more serious injuries. In these circumstances, the intention or at least the knowledge of the Appellant seems to have been established sufficiently to bring the case within the purview of -Section 307, IPC. 10. It was lucky that the knife did not penetrate further in the stomach or did not cause more serious injuries. In these circumstances, the intention or at least the knowledge of the Appellant seems to have been established sufficiently to bring the case within the purview of -Section 307, IPC. 10. Finally, it was urged by the Appellant's counsel that the Appellant should be given the benefit of Section 6 of the Probation of First Offender's Act No. 20 of 1958, and he relied upon the case of Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar (2) where their Lordships of the Supreme Court had, after holding that the offence was punishable only u/s 324, IPC, remanded the case to the High Court for the consideration of the appropriate order to be passed by applying Section 6 of the Probation of First Offender's Act. In that case, the age of the Appellant was shown to be below 21 years. The Appellant before me gave out her age as 30 years at the trial. A mere asking for the application of Section 6 of the above mentioned Act is not sufficient to make it applicable. The accused has to be proved to be below 21 years in age to make the mandatory part of Section 6 applicable. Moreover, the mandatory part of Section 6 of the Act applies only where there are no grounds, having regard to the antecedents and character of the accused, to deprive an accused person of its benefit. Its benefit should be claimed ordinarily before the trial court passes sentence. And, in any case, its benefit cannot be given to an accused person without giving the prosecution an opportunity to show whether facts and circumstances exist which may deprive even an accused below 21 of its benefit. Moreover, the above mentioned Act applies in a State only after a notification by the State Government. No such notification has been brought to my notice. Therefore, this contention must also fail. 11. In the result, I affirm the conviction of the Appellant u/s 307, IPC but reduce her sentence, in the circumstances of the case, from four year's R.I. to three year's R.I. Subject to this modification this appeal is dismissed. The Appellant is on bail. She shall surrender forthwith to serve out the sentence.