Short Note : 1. This is an appeal from jail against the judgment of the learned Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, in Sessions Trial No.155 of 75 whereby the appellant was held guilty for the offence under sections 302, 397 and 307, IPC., for which he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life on the first count, rigorous imprisonment for seven years on the second count and rigorous imprisonment for five years on the third count. All these sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Held; The medical evidence is quite clear that the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased as well as on the person of Gurudin could be caused by a knife. The injuries found on the dead body were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Thus looking to the nature of the crime, weapon and the manner in which the appellant caused fatal injuries to the deceased, there cannot be any doubt in holding that he assaulted the deceased with the intention to commit his murder or with the intention of causing such injuries as wife sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The injury sustained by Gurudin (PW1) at the hands of the appellant was also very grave and it being on a vital part of the body, it can be safely concluded that the appellant, by causing the stab-wound to Gurudin, attempted to commit his murder. The appellant has, therefore, been rightly convicted for the offences under sections 302 and 307, IPC. The trial Court has already awarded the lesser punishment for the offence under section 302, IPC., while the sentence under section 307, IPC., is to run concurrently with the life sentence. There is, therefore, no ground to make interference in the conviction and sentence, as recorded by the trial Court, against the appellant, for the offences under sections 302 and 307, I.P.C. 2. However, the offence under section 397, IPC., in our opinion has not been proved against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt. In the FIR, it is not stated that the complainant Gurudin and the deceased Bharat were robbed of their bicycle and transistor. The witness Gurudin has said that when he was stabbed, he left his bicycle on the spot and walked for some distance before he fell down on the ground. In the FIR, it is not stated that the complainant Gurudin and the deceased Bharat were robbed of their bicycle and transistor. The witness Gurudin has said that when he was stabbed, he left his bicycle on the spot and walked for some distance before he fell down on the ground. According to this witness deceased Bharat was holding a transister in his hand. It is not known who actually took away the transister from the spot. The bicycle and transister were seized from the house of the co-accused Kamal, who has been acquitted. Thus, the story of the prosecution that the appellant robbed the bicycle and transister at the time of the said occurrence is not free from doubt and hence the benefit of doubt must go to the appellant. For these reasons, the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence under section 397, IPC must be set aside. Appeal partly allowed.