JUDGMENT 1. - The learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, under his judgment dated September 25, 1976, convicted the accused-appellant under Section 307 as well as under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and under both the counts, the accused-appellant was sentenced to undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment. The sentences under both the counts were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Mehram PW 5 is father of one Hapuram PW 7. Surjaram, father of accused appellant Bhakar Ram had mortgaged his fields with Mehram PW 5 for Rs. 2500/- on May 26, 1969 and there was a stipulation in the mortgage deed that the mortgage shall be redeemed within a period of five years. On May 20, 1974, that is, after the expiry of about five years of the mortgage, Surjaram father of the accused appellant, his two sons, namely, Bhakar Ram and Oparam and his wife Rukri went to the thrashing floor at about 8.00 a.m. There, Hapuram PW 7 and others were sitting. They enquired from Hapuram about his father and it was given out that he is at the house. Thereupon, all proceeded towards the house of Mehram who met them on the way. All of them sat there for talks After about ten to fifteen minutes, there was a loud noise and Hapuram fell down. It is alleged that Mst. Rukri mother of the accused-appellant held Mehram from banian and Surjaram and Oparam held him by his hands Dhannaram was also coming towards that side. Seeing that Mehram has been caught, Mehram, Hapuram, Bhagwana Ram PW 4 went for his rescue. When they were at a distance of five to six paces from Mehram, it is alleged that the accused appellant Bhakarram took out a knife from the pocket of his shirt and stabbed Mehram in his abdomen towards the right side above umbilicus. Mehram raised shrieks. Hapuram and others tried to apprehend the accused appellant but it is alleged that his father Surjaram extended threat to them that they will also be dealt with accordingly. The case of the prosecution further was that Surjaram father of the accused-appellant was armed with a Dharia which was lying on the ground which he picked and thereafter made good his escape. The case of the prosecution further was that Surjaram father of the accused-appellant was armed with a Dharia which was lying on the ground which he picked and thereafter made good his escape. Injured Mehram was removed to the hospital and Hapuram PW lodged a written report Ex P 4 on the same day at about 10.45 a.m. in police station, Mahamandir, Jodhpur A case was registered and investigation was set in motion. Accused appellant gave information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act for getting the knife recovered and consequently, on his information, the knife was recovered which appeared to be blood stained which was seized and sealed on the spot. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused-appellant and his father and mother. All of them pleaded not guilty. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to explain the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The accused-appellant stands on a bare plea of denial and came out with a case that the witnesses are relations and, therefore, they have deposed against him. He also denied the recovery of knife on his information. The accused persons examined Ramuram DW 1, Sukhdev DW 2 and Indersingh DW in defence. The learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as aforesaid whereas the other two accused persons were acquitted of the charges levelled against them. 3. The learned advocate for the accused appellants has advanced only one argument that no offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is made out and only an offence under Section 308, IPC, is made out. He submitted that the parties are relations and have arrived at a compromise which he has filed. It is contended that in case an offence under Section 308 IPC is made out, which according to him is made out, then looking to the fact that the parties have arrived at a compromise, this court should extend the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the accused appellant. It is contended that in case an offence under Section 308 IPC is made out, which according to him is made out, then looking to the fact that the parties have arrived at a compromise, this court should extend the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the accused appellant. The learned advocate has not challenged that it is the accused-appellant who is the author of injury by knife to Mehram PW 5 Apart from the fact that it is not challenged that the accused is the author of the injury to the accused-appellant, there is sufficient material on record from winch it can be said that the finding of the learned trial court that the accused stabbed Mehram in his abdomen does not call for any interference. Besides the statement of Mehram PW 5 injured, who has stated that Surjaram did not pay the amount of the mortgage and did not redeem the property, the registered mortgage deed was with Hapuram, it is alleged that the accused and his father asked for the registered mortgage deed and Mahram and others gave out that in case they pay the mortgage money, the registered document shall be handed over to them. They all set in the way and Mahram to hand over the mortgage deed without taking the money. It is alleged that the accused appellant took out the knife and stabbed him. Though it is alleged that the mortgage money had been paid under Ex. P 3, there is no endorsement to this effect on the mortgage deed Ex. P 5. The statement of Mehram injured PW 5 is corroborated by the statement of his son Hapuram PW 7 and by Bhagwana Ram PW 4 and Nenuram PW 1. It cannot be said that the prosecution has failed to establish that it is the accused who all of a sudden stabbed Mehram with a knife There is material on record that the knife Ex. 1 was used by the accused. A statement has been made to this effect by Mehram PW 5. It is also stated by Hapuram PW 7 and Bhagwana PW 4. They had also identification parade. Nenuram PW 1 was Chairman of Nyaya Panchayat and he held the identification parade of the knife. He stated that Hapuram, Dhan-naram, Nimaram and Mehram identified the knife. Thus, the weapon is correctly identified. It is also stated by Hapuram PW 7 and Bhagwana PW 4. They had also identification parade. Nenuram PW 1 was Chairman of Nyaya Panchayat and he held the identification parade of the knife. He stated that Hapuram, Dhan-naram, Nimaram and Mehram identified the knife. Thus, the weapon is correctly identified. It can, therefore, be said that the accused inflicted a stab injury on the abdomen of Mehram by knife Ex. 1. 4. Now 1 take up the contention of the learned advocate that no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out. Dr. P. Dayal PW 2 was the medical jurist at the relevant time and he has stated that he examined Mehram aged about 70 years on May 15, 1974 and found that there was incised wound 2.5 cm. x 0.5 cm. on the abdomen on right side 6 cm. above umbilicus and 3.5 cm. to the right of the midline. The omentum was protruding through the wound at the time of the examination though the patient was conscious. In his opinion, the injury was caused by a sharp weapon, the duration was about two or four hours. He kept the injured under observation for forming a final opinion as to whether the injury was grievous or simple. He identified Mehram. Dr. P. Dayal PW 2 further stated that he examined Mehram at 12.20 noon on the same day in the operation theatre and found that the greater omentum was bleeding at several places. There was a perforation of the transverse column about 2 cm. long The blood pressure was 110/70 ml. of Mercury. The pulse was 76 per minute and respiration 20 per minute. Dr. Dayal states that on the basis of the above finding, he formed the opinion that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In his opinion, the injury could have been caused by knife Ex. 1. No doubt, it would have been better if the operation notes of the doctor who operated upon Mehram would have been produced, but there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of Dr. P. Dayal PW 2 that he was present at the time of operation and in the operation theatre, he re-examined the injured. Dr. Dayal states that the operation was performed in his presence and thereafter he prepared a supplementary report Ex. P. 3. 5. P. Dayal PW 2 that he was present at the time of operation and in the operation theatre, he re-examined the injured. Dr. Dayal states that the operation was performed in his presence and thereafter he prepared a supplementary report Ex. P. 3. 5. From the statement of Dr. Dayal, therefore, it can be said that there was perforation of the transverse colon about 2 cm. long. So far as omentum is concerned, it has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge that the greater omentum is not a vital organ physiologically and it is so indicated by the fact that it is occasionally congenially absent and it may be removed without apparent ill effect. This view of the learned Sessions Judge is based on Gray's Anatomy, Thirtieth Edition, edited by T.B. Johnson and J. Whillis, p. 1356. But as regards transverse colon, the learned Sessions Judge has observed that it is a vital part. In the `Textbook of Anatomy' by W. Henry Holinshed, at p. 625, the author has observed that behind the upper border of the omentum and attached to the lower border of the stomach by it, is a part of the large intestines or colon that runs from right to left; this is called the transverse colon, although it may loop markedly down in front of the small intestine and in any events does not run exactly transversely, for its right side is lower than its left, Gray in his anatomy (Descriptive and Applied) 34th Edition at p. 1493 (bottom) has said, "The transverse colon (fig. 1133), about 50 cm long, begins at the right colic flexure, in the right hypochondriac region, passes across the abdomen into the left hypochondriac region and here curves sharply on itself, downwards and backwards, beneath the lateral end of the spleen, forming the left colic flexure. In its course across the abdomen it describes an arch, the concavity of which is usually directed back wards and upwards; towards its splenic and there is often an abrupt U-shaped curve which may descend lower then the main curve. The precise position occupied by the transverse colon is difficult to define, for it not only shows individual variation but its position varies in the same individual from time to time. The precise position occupied by the transverse colon is difficult to define, for it not only shows individual variation but its position varies in the same individual from time to time. Very commonly it lies in the lower umbilical or upper hypogastric region." Thus, colon is a part of large intestines and it is divided into four parts reascending, transverse, descending and sigmoid. Dr. Dayal PW 2 has clearly stated that a per-formation of 2 cm long of the transverse colon is an injury which is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly observed that it is for the court ultimately to say as to whether the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or not and the court, for that purpose, can itself look to the nature of the injuries. Mr. Choudhary has referred to S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 825 of 1975, Radhakishan v. State decided by me on August 29, 1981 in support of the submission that only an offence under S. 308 IPC is made out and not under Section 307, IPC. In the aforesaid appeal, I have observed that if degree of death as a result of injury is high, then an offence under Section 307 IPC is made out, otherwise, if the degree of death as a result of the injury was not so high, and even if death takes place as a result of the injury, an offence under Section 304 IPC is made out and in such a case, only an offence under S. 302 IPC is made out. But that case has no application to the present case. In that case, Dr. Singh did not even say that but for the treatment, the patient would not have survived. In that case, there was no mention in the report Ex. P 4 as 1o whether there was any cutting of the vein and artery and the doctor had not explored the wound further. 6. For an offence under section 307 IPC, it is not even necessary that any injury must have be caused. All that is required under that the accused must do an act with such intention or knowledge and in such circumstances that if he, by that act, causes death, he would be guilty of murder. 6. For an offence under section 307 IPC, it is not even necessary that any injury must have be caused. All that is required under that the accused must do an act with such intention or knowledge and in such circumstances that if he, by that act, causes death, he would be guilty of murder. Intention or knowledge of the accused is a matter of inference and no direct evidence can be led. When the accused used a knife which has a blade of about 6" on a vital part like abdomen as a result of which there is perforation of transverse colon, 2 cm. in length, it can be said that the accused intended or had the knowledge, when he gave the blow on the vital part, that he, by his act, is likely to cause death. Dr. Dayal PW 2 has clearly stated that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Obviously, an operation was performed and the colon was repaired. Thus, through the doctor who conducted the operation had not been examined but on the material on record, it can be said that the operation was preferred as Dr. Dayal has clearly stated to that effect, in the operation theatre, he re-examined the injured and saw that there was perforation of the transverse colon and prepared a supplementary report Ex. P3. I am, therefore, of the opinion that it is a clear case under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and I am unable to agree with the learned advocate for the accused appellant that only an offence under Section 308 IPC is made out. 7. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused appellant both under Section 307 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code and separate sentences under both the counts have been awarded. Under Section 71 of the Indian Penal Code, where anything which is an offence is made up of parts, any of which parts is itself an offence, the offender shall not be punished with the punishment of more than one of such of his offences, unless it is so expressly provided. Under Section 71 of the Indian Penal Code, where anything which is an offence is made up of parts, any of which parts is itself an offence, the offender shall not be punished with the punishment of more than one of such of his offences, unless it is so expressly provided. Similarly under the same section where anything is an offence falling within two or more separate definitions of any law in force for the time being by which offences are defined or punished, or where serveral acts, of which one or more than one would by itself or themselves constitute an offence, constitute, when combined, a different offence, the offender shall not be punished with a more severe punishment than the court which tries him could award for any one of such offences. The accused stabbed only once and, therefore, he can only be convicted either under Section 307 or 326 Indian Penal Code and not under both. 8. A sentence of three years, looking to the fact that the parties have arrived at a compromise, to me, appears to be excessive. I will therefore, maintain the conviction of the accused appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence him to two years' rigorous imprisonment. The conviction and sentence passed against the accused under Section 326 Indian Penal Code are set aside. Any imprisonment undergone by the accused shall be set off and the accused shall only undergo the remainder of the sentence. The accused is on bail. He shall surrender immediately to his bail bonds to serve out the sentence or any remaining part thereof failing which the trial court shall take steps to get the accused apprehended so that he undergoes the sentence awarded or any remaining part thereof.Order accordingly. *******