S.S. BYAS, J.—Accused Ditiya alias Durgashanker has been convicted under section 307,, I.P.C. and sentenced to 4 years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 1 months like imprisonment by the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur by his Judgment dated February 12, 1982. By this Jail appeal, he challenges his conviction and sentence. 2. Succinctly stated the facts leading to the prosecution and conviction of the accused-appellant are as follows:- 3. In the afternoon, on 1.11.80, P.W. 3 Jamala (the injured victim in the case) was grazing his bullocks near his house situate in village Sondruf, District Udipur. Accused appellant Ditiya accompanied with his father Dhoolia and brother Gopida came there armed with lethal weapons. Accused Ditiya was armed with sword while remaining two had bows and arrows. They addressed abusive words to Jamala and asked him as to how he was grazing his cattle there, Jamala asserted his right and told them that the bullocks were grazing in his own field. Thereupon, all the three persons made an assault on Jamala. Gopia (co-accused) shot two arrows at Jamala, hitting him on his fore-head and ankle. Jamala raised cries. Accused Ditiya struck him a number of blows in quick succession with the sword. As a result, Jamala sustained multiple injuries on the various parts of the body including the head. Hearing the out cries of Jamala, his father P.W. 5 Phoolia, his mother P.W. 4 Mst. Singuri, his wife P.W. 11 Smt. Sundari, his brother P.W. 14 Sahiba and some persons came there. Seeing them, the accused ran away. There was profuse bleeding from the victims wounds and the clothes, he was wearing, got drenched with it. P.W. 5 Phoolia immediately went to police station, Kotra and presented written report Ex. P/12 of the occurrence. The police registered a case under section 307,, IPC. and proceeded with investigation. The injuries of the victim were examined at about 7.45 p.m. on the same day by P.W. 1 Dr. O.P. Garg, the then the Medical Officer-in charge, Public Health Centre, Kotra. He found as many as 8 injuries caused by sharp weapon. Out of them, seven injuries were designated as grievous. The X-ray examination of the victims injuries revealed as many as six fractures including one on the left parietal bone. The accused persons were arrested on 12.11.80. O.P. Garg, the then the Medical Officer-in charge, Public Health Centre, Kotra. He found as many as 8 injuries caused by sharp weapon. Out of them, seven injuries were designated as grievous. The X-ray examination of the victims injuries revealed as many as six fractures including one on the left parietal bone. The accused persons were arrested on 12.11.80. While under police custody, accused Ditiya produced the sword alleged to have been used by him in the commission of the offence. On the completion of investigation, the police submitted a challan against the three persons namely; accused Ditiya, his father Dhoolia and his brother Gopida in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Kotra. The learned Magistrate in the turn committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions Judge, Udaipur. The learned Judge framed charges under sections 307 and 307 read with 34, I.P.C. against each of them The accused persons pleaded not guilty and faced the trial. Two of them namely; Dhoolia and Gopida denied their presence at the place of occurrence and alleged that they were falsely implicated. Accused Ditiya, while denying the guilt, averred that it was the victim Jamala, who made an assault on him and shot arrows at him. Jamala had a sword with him When Jamala (P.W. 3) tried to strike the blows to him with his sword, he caught hold of the sword. In this process, P.W. 3 Jamala sustained some injuries by his own sword. During trial, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses and filed some documents. In defence, the accused-persons examined one witness. On the conclusion of trial, the learned Judge dis-believed the prosecution story as against the two accused Dhoolia and Gopida. They were, consequently, acquitted. He, however, held the charge under sec 307, I.P.C. duly brought home to the accused Ditiya. As a result, he was convicted and sentenced as mentioned at the very out set. Aggrieved against the conviction and sentence, accused Ditiya has taken this appeal. 4. 1 have heard the learned Amicus Curiae and the Public Prosecutor. I have also gone through the case-file, carefully. 5. Before proceeding further, it would be worthwhile to notice the injuries sustained by the victim. The injuries of the victim were examined at 7.45 p.m. on the very day of occurrence by P. W. 1 Dr. O. P. Garg, the then the Medical Officer, PHC, Kotra. I have also gone through the case-file, carefully. 5. Before proceeding further, it would be worthwhile to notice the injuries sustained by the victim. The injuries of the victim were examined at 7.45 p.m. on the very day of occurrence by P. W. 1 Dr. O. P. Garg, the then the Medical Officer, PHC, Kotra. The injury report issued by him is Ex. P/l. Dr. Garg Stated that on examination, he found, the following injuries on the body of the victim:- 1. Fresh transverse incised wound with fracture of left temporal and occipital bone clearly visible in the wound. Hair folicles were cut off. Size 12-1/2 cm. x 2-1/2 cm. bone deep. The wound was situated on the left side of scalp 2" above the triger of the left ear, scalp facia and left temporal and occipital bone were cut. 2. Fresh oblique/ incised wound with fire edges size 8-1/2 cm. x 2-1/2 cm. x 1-1/2 cm. The wound was present on the left side of the face and neck in the lower part of the left face and anterior triangle of the left neck. 3. Incised wound/oblique in direction 3 cm. x1 cm. x1-1/2 cm. was present on the outer angle of the left eye brow. 4. Incised wound longitudinal deep seated. Left ulna bone at the lower l/3rd region about 2" piece from the shaft of the bone has been cut off. Size 18 cm. x 3 cm. x ulna bone deep cutting lower l/3rd piece of the bone visible in the wound. The wound present on the anterio-madial aspect of the right forearm muscles have been cut in the course of the wound. 5. Incised wound transverse in direction with right ulna bone size 5 cm. x 1/2 cm. x bone deep present on the posterior aspect of the right fore-arm 1-1/2" below the albow joint. The right ulna bone was fractured in the wound. 6. Inctsed wound. The right little finger was completed cut off and just hanging by the hand by posterior flap of skin. Size 6 cm. x 1/2 cm. x bone deep was present on the palmer aspect of the right hand at the proximal phalynx of the right little and middle finger. The proximal phalynx of the right little finger was fractured. 7. Transverse incised wound size 9" x 3 cm. x bone deep. Size 6 cm. x 1/2 cm. x bone deep was present on the palmer aspect of the right hand at the proximal phalynx of the right little and middle finger. The proximal phalynx of the right little finger was fractured. 7. Transverse incised wound size 9" x 3 cm. x bone deep. The wound was present on the anterior aspect of the left fore-arm. 11 cm. above the wrist joint. The muscle were cut off in the count of the wound. 8. Transferred incised wound 3 in numbers size (1)4 cm, x 1/2 cm. (2) 1-1/2 cm. x0.2 cm. (3) 4 cm. x 0.2 cm. Present on the posterior aspect of the left hand over proximal phalynx of the four fingers (a) middle finger (b) proximal phalynx is in the middle was completely cut off and the finger was just hanging. Left fore-finger was just hanging. Left fore finger proximal phalynx was fractured. 6. P.W. 1 Dr. O.P. Garg stated that injury No. 3 was simple and all the remaining seven injuries were grievous. They were caused by some sharp cutting weapon like sword. The duration of the injuries was 2-3 hours at the time of examination. 7. The injuries were also X rayed on 2.11.80 by P.W. 2 Dr. G. L. Verma, the then Radiologist, General Hospital, Udaipur. The x-ray examination revealed the following fractures :- 1. Fracture on the left parietal bone of skull. 2. Fracture of right ulna. 3. Fracture of proximal phalynx of righ tring finger. 4. Fracture of left radius. 5. Fracture of Proximal phalynx of left finger. 6. Fracture of left middle finger. The report issued by him is Ex. p/8. 8. The number and nature of the injuries sustained by the victim were neither challenged by the accused in the trial court nor have been challenged before me. 9. In assailing the conviction of the accused-appellant, the first contention raised by the learned Amicus Curiae is that the whole prosecution story was false and fabricated. The prosecution examined as many as 6 eye-witnesses, each of whom alleged to have been seen the occurrence. Five of them were either the victim or his parents and other closed relatives. The only independent witness is P. W. 6 Baheta. He has not lent any support to the prosecution case. The prosecution examined as many as 6 eye-witnesses, each of whom alleged to have been seen the occurrence. Five of them were either the victim or his parents and other closed relatives. The only independent witness is P. W. 6 Baheta. He has not lent any support to the prosecution case. As such, the conviction of the accused appellant on the evidence of the interested witnesses, cannot be supported. There were major contradictions inter se in what they stated. It was also argued that the learned trial Judge disbelieved the testimony of these relative witnesses as regards the role played by the two accused-persons Dhoolia and Gopida. In these circumstances, it would not be free from risk in convicting the accused on the evidence of such witnesses. If they could falsely impplicate Dhoolia and Gopida, they could also falsely implicate the accused appellant. In reply, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the conviction of the accused-appellant and sub-mitted that there were no sound reasons to discard the evidence of relative witnesses. 10. I have taken the respective contentions into consideration. The prosecution has examined 6 witnesses including the victim, namely; P.W. 3 Jamala (victim), P. W. 4 Mst. Singuri (mother of the victim), P. W. 5 Phola, P. W. 6 Baheta, P.W. 11 Smt. Sundari and P. W. 14 Sahiba. 11. P. W. 3 Jamala (victim) deposed that in the afternoon, on the day of occurrence, he was grazing his bullocks in his field. Accused Ditiya accompanied by his father Dhoolia and brother Gopida came to him and asked why he was grazing his cattle there. He replied that the field belonged to him. Accused Gopida shot two arrows at him, which hit him on his eye brow and ankle. He took out the arrows and threw them away. Dhoolia caught hold him by his neck. Gopida asked the accused Ditiya to strike blows to him by his sword. Thereupon, the accused Ditiya struck a number of blows by his sword. He sustained multiple injuries on his head and other parts of the body. He raised the cries. His parents, brother, wife, and some other persons came there, the accused thereafter ran away. P. W. 4 Smt. Singuri is the mother of the victim, she also gave the same description of the incident and stated that hearing the out cries of the victim, she reached the place of occurrence. He raised the cries. His parents, brother, wife, and some other persons came there, the accused thereafter ran away. P. W. 4 Smt. Singuri is the mother of the victim, she also gave the same description of the incident and stated that hearing the out cries of the victim, she reached the place of occurrence. Accused Ditiya had a sword and struck a number of blows to the victim with it. P. W. 5 Phoola is the father of the victim and he also deposed the same story. He stated that he reached the place of occurrence on hearing the cries Accused Ditiya struck a number of blows to the victim. The victim fell down. P. W. 11 Smt. Sundari is the wife of the victim. She deposed that hearing the out-cries of the victim, she went to the place of occurrence. The three accused persons were present there. Accused Ditiya struck the blows with the sword to her husband Jamala. P. W. 14 Sahiba is the brother of the victim. He narrated the incident in more or less the same words. According to him, accused Ditiya struck the blows to the victim with a sword. 12. These five witnesses were cross-examined at length, but they remained firm and unarduous of the role played by the accused-appellant. According to each of them it was the accused Ditiya, who struck blows to the victim with his sword. There may be slight variation here and there, in their description of the incident. But these variations or discrepancies are trival to take any notice of. These variations and discrepancies do not destroy the main substratum of the prosecution case. There is a general agreement in their evidence on the essential features of the prosecution case against the accused-appellant and the role played by him in inflicting the injuries to the victim. 13. It is true that one of these witnesses is the victim himself and the others are his closed relatives. Their evidence, however, cannot be discarded or disbelieved only on the ground of their presence at the place of occurrence or near about it, is not open to any doubt. The learned Judge of the court below accepted their evidence true as against the accused appellant. I find no good and cogent reason to take a different view. Their evidence, however, cannot be discarded or disbelieved only on the ground of their presence at the place of occurrence or near about it, is not open to any doubt. The learned Judge of the court below accepted their evidence true as against the accused appellant. I find no good and cogent reason to take a different view. Their testimony was rightly believed by the trial court as regards the role played by the accused appellant in inflicting the injuries to the victim. 14. P.W. 6 Baheta has, of course, not lent support to the prosecution. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution. It appears, he was won over. However, he admitted that he saw the victim in injured state and there was profuse bleeding from his wounds. His hostile attitude does not adversely affect the prosecution case. The evidence of five witnesses referred to above cannot be dismissed solely because this witness P.W. 6 Baheta has not supported them. 15. The prosecution witnesses deposed that accused Gopida shot two arrows at the victim which hit him on his eye brow and ankle. The learned Judge did not accept their this version for the reason that in the two declaration Ex. D/l and Ex.D/4 made before the Doctor and the Magistrate, the victim did not disclose the story of arrow shots and even did not mention the presence of the two accused Gopida and Dhoolia on the site of occurrence. According to the learned Judge, this part of the prosecution story was later on falsely introduced in the course of trial. 16. It was argued that when these witnesses could introduce a false story against these two accused, who have been acquitted, they could also falsely implicate the accused appellant and invent a fabricated version against him. I find the contention absolutely barren. 17. The learned Judge has carefully scrutinised evalued and sifted the evidence of all the ocular witnesses. He has disbelieved them against the two accused persons but accepted their testimony as against the accused appellant. The accused appellant has himself in his statement under sec. 313, Cr.P.C. admitted his presence at the place of occurrence. He has come out with a plea of right of private defence of person. Taking this circumstance into consideration along with the evidence of the eye-witnesses, the approach of the learned Judge cannot be said to be erroneous. The accused appellant has himself in his statement under sec. 313, Cr.P.C. admitted his presence at the place of occurrence. He has come out with a plea of right of private defence of person. Taking this circumstance into consideration along with the evidence of the eye-witnesses, the approach of the learned Judge cannot be said to be erroneous. Where one part of the evidence of a witness is disbelieved, the court may act on the rest of his testimony provided it is unblemished and untainted. In other words, the court has powers to disbelieve one part of a witnesss evidence and disbelieve the other part. It may accept the testimony of some of the witnesses against one and may not accept the same against the other. Rather it is the duty of a court, while assessing the guilt or innocence of the accused to properly scan and evaluate the evidence of witnesses. In discharging this function, it may accept a part of the evidence of a witness and reject the other. There is thus, no force in the contention of the learned Amicus Curiae that the whole prosecution case should be thrown away simply because the eye witnesses have not been found reliable in respect of the two accused persons. 18. It was next contended by the learned Amicus Curiae that the court below was in error in not accepting the plea of private defence of the persons put forwarded by the accused appellant, in his statement, under sec, 313, Cr.P.C accused Ditiya stated that when he was sitting out side his house, the victim Jamala shot three arrows at him. He moved aside and thus, managed to save himself. Thereafter, Jamala (victim) came with a sword and tried to hit him. He caught his sword and in that process the victim sustained some injuries. Unfortunately his own sister Haldi D.W. 1, who was examined in his defence did not support his version. She did not state that the victim Jamala came with a sword and tried to hit the accused appellant with it. According to her, accused Ditiya had a sword with him She also stated that the victim shot no arrows at accused Ditiya She further admitted that accused Ditiya was waving his sword and in that process, the victim received injuries. According to her, accused Ditiya had a sword with him She also stated that the victim shot no arrows at accused Ditiya She further admitted that accused Ditiya was waving his sword and in that process, the victim received injuries. To quote her actual words:- ^^fnfr;k tks ryokj ?kqek jgk Fkk] mlls tekyk ds ryokj dh yxhA** This destroys the whole fabric of the accuseds plea of the right of private defence. The plea of private defence is false and fantastic. It was rightly rejected by the learned trial Judge. 19. It was next contended that no offence under sec. 307, IPC is made out. Even if, the prosecution story is accepted as true against the accused appellant, the offence made out is of causing grievous hurt by a sharp weapon punishable under sec. 326, IPC. 20. Now, for the purpose of constituting an attempt under sec. 307, I.P.C., two things are required, first; an evil, intent or knowledge and secondly; an act done. The intention of the assailant is to be gathered from the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body where the injuries are inflicted. In the instant case, the accused appellant struck blows on the head and the other parts of the victim by a sword in quick succession. As a result, the victim received injuries out of which, as many as seven were fractures. One of the fractures was of the left parietal bone. In these circumstances, it can be safely inferred that the accused intended to cause the victims death by inflicting these injuries. The offence made out, thus, clearly falls under section 307, IPC. 21. The last submission made by the learned Amicus Curiae pertains to sentences. It was argued that the accused was a young man of nearly 22 years in age, and the sentences imposed are heavy and harsh. A lenient view in the matter of sentence should be adopted. I again find no force in the submission. The accused inflicted as many as 8 injuries to the victim by a sword. Even the skull of the victim was not spared. The victim sustained six fractures including one of the parietal bone. The manner in which, the assault was made, clearly indicates that there was a deliberate design on the part of the accused. The accused inflicted as many as 8 injuries to the victim by a sword. Even the skull of the victim was not spared. The victim sustained six fractures including one of the parietal bone. The manner in which, the assault was made, clearly indicates that there was a deliberate design on the part of the accused. In these circumstances, the accused appellant does not deserve any leniency and no reduction in the sentence is called for. 22. No other contention was raised before me. The accused was rightly convicted and sentenced. 23. As a result of the above discussion, I find no force in this appeal. The appeal of accused Ditiya is dismissed. He is serving out the sentences. He be accordingly informed of the result of appeal.