JUDGMENT - M.S. APTE, J.:---The appellant in this case was prosecuted for an offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, in Sessions Case No. 40 of 1976 for attempting to commit murder of Gautambai w/o Bhaga Bhil. It appears that Gautambai was married to Bhaga about 16 years back, but within about four years after the marriage, her husband deserted her and thereafter she came to stay at Pilode alone. While at Pilode, she came into contact with the accused with whom she fell in love and thereafter illicit intimacy started between the two. The accused is a Koli while Gautambai is a Bhil. It appears that the members of her community did not like her association and illicit intimacy with the accused who belonged to a difference community and, therefore, they tried to separate her from the accused and to keep her with her maternal uncle. As the members of her community did not like her association with the accused, Gautambai also stayed with the accused for one day at Amalner and thereafter left and on 19-10-1972 the accused while she was going away, assaulted her near a stream let with a scythe and caused injuries on her abdomen and neck. She, however, wrested away the weapon from his hand and, therefore, the accused decamped. With great difficulty Gautambai walked to the dispensary at Amalner where she was treated for her injuries from 19-10-1972 to 1-11-1972. Fortunately she respondent to the treatment and survived and was discharged on 1-11-1972. On the evidence led by the prosecution and having regard to the nature of the injuries that were inflicited on Gautambai, the Assistant Sessions Judge has convicted the accused of the offence under section 307 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for 9 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer further R.I. for one year. In this appeal Mr. S. R. Chitnis who appears for Mr. V.S. Kotwal for the accused did not make any attempt to challenge the order of conviction for the offence under section 307 I.P.C. obviously because that attempt would have proved futile in view of overwhelming evidence on record. He, however, made an earnest plea for reduction of the sentence urging that the sentence of 9 years R.I. is very much exorbitant. Mr. He, however, made an earnest plea for reduction of the sentence urging that the sentence of 9 years R.I. is very much exorbitant. Mr. Chitnis in this connection invited our attention to the reasoning given by the learned Judge in paragraph 20 of his judgment for imposing such a heavy sentence. The learned Judge has observed that although Gautambai was in love with the accused, the accused did not reciprocate her love or affection, but he wanted to maintain his illicit relations with this woman at any cost and that was why when the members of her community did not like their association, she wanted to leave the accused when the accused committed this assault on her. This reasoning, however, does not appear to be totally correct; because the admissions given by Gautambai herself in her cross-examination clearly go to show that the accused did respond to or reciprocate the feelings of affection and love which were shown towards him by Gautambai. He even made attempts to kept her in his house along with his wife and children and to maintain her. However, it was only because Gautambai was afraid that her life was in danger from the members of her community that she did not want to stay with the accused any longer. The reasoning given by the learned Judge for imposing heavy sentence on the accused that the accused did not reciprocate her love, therefore, is not entirely correct. In our view, having regard to the circumstances of the case, sentence of 9 years is certainly exorbitant. Ends of justice would be met by imposing a sentence of 4 years imprisonment and the same fine that has been imposed by the trial Court. In this connection, we would like to mention that although the injuries were caused to her by scythe, they do not appear to be very serious because it appears that she was not required to be treated as an indoor patient for more than 12 days or so. Consequently, we partly allow the appeal and while maintaining the order of conviction of the accused for the offence under section 307 I.P.C., we reduce the substantive sentence to 4 years R.I. and also maintain the sentence of fine of Rs. 2000/- as well as the order for payment of Rs. 1000/- out of the fine if recovered to Gautambai by way of compensation. 2000/- as well as the order for payment of Rs. 1000/- out of the fine if recovered to Gautambai by way of compensation. The sentence in default of payment of fine is also maintained. -----