JUDGMENT 1. The appellant, Rajender Kumar, hereinafter referred to as the accused, upon having been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, in Sessions Case No. 24 of 1994 for the offence under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, vide judgment dated 27/29-12-1995 stands sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rupee 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, he has been sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of ten days. 2. Briefly, the prosecution story may be thus stated. The accused and the injured complainant PW. 2 Rakesh Kumar both belong to village Dhulara, Pargana Bhatti Tikkri falling within the local limits of Police Station, Chowari in District Chamba. There exists a Shiva Temple in the area of Nadal. On 27.2.92, a "Jagrata" was held at the said temple in which 50/60 persons including the accused and PW. 2 Rakesh Kumar had participated. As a customary ritual a he-goat and lamb were offered as a sacrifice at the altar of the deity during the "Jagrata". Worshipping at the diety, which started at 7.30 p.m., came to an end at about 9 p.m. All the devotees, including the accused and PW. 2 Rakesh Kumar, then went to a nearby "Kotha" (seasonal abode of Gujjars), where the meat of sacrificed he-goat and lamb was cooked. PW. 2 Rakesh Kumar was deputed to distribute the meat as "Prasad". At that time most of the devotees were drinking liquor. PW. 2 Rakesh Kumar started distributing the "Prasad". When he offered "Prasad" to the accused, the latter demanded more. PW. 2 told him that let him finish with the distribution of the "Prasad" in the first round and then he would give him more. The accused whereupon got flared up. He called PW. 2 Rakesh Kumar a thief and also started abusing him. An altercation ensued between them. The accused thereafter threatened PW.2 that he would kill him. He then took out a knife (Ex. P. 1) and gave a blow thereof on the stomach of PW. 2. The accused was stopped and apprehended by the persons present. 3. The matter was reported to the police on the following morning at about 9.30 a.m. PW.2 was sent to Primary Health Centre, Samote, for medical examination. PW. 4 Dr. Ajay Dutta, who carried out such medical examination, found the following injury on the person of PW. 2. The accused was stopped and apprehended by the persons present. 3. The matter was reported to the police on the following morning at about 9.30 a.m. PW.2 was sent to Primary Health Centre, Samote, for medical examination. PW. 4 Dr. Ajay Dutta, who carried out such medical examination, found the following injury on the person of PW. 2 Rakesh Kumar :— "A stab wound in left hypochondriac region about 2 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep size. Clotted blood was present around the wound. No fresh bleeding. Edges of wound were sharp. Signs of peritonitis were present." 4. The injury was found dangerous to life. PW. 4 referred the patient PW. 2 Rakesh Kumar to Zonal Hospital, Dharamshala, for further surgical management. PW. 2 remained admitted at Zonal Hospital under treatment of PW. 10. Dr. D.N. Chadha till 28.9.1992. 5. The blood stained clothes of PW. 2 Rakesh Kumar, namely shirt Ext. P. 2 and pant Ext. P.3, alongwith the weapon of offence, that is knife Ext. P. 1 which the accused had thrown in the "Kotha" after the occurrence and which was picked up by PW. 3 Jaikaran, were handed over to the police during the course of investigation, by PW. 3. The knife and clothes on having been subjected to chemical examination were found to be stained with human blood of group "A-positive". 6. On having been charged for the offence under Section 307. Indian Penal Code, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. The accused in his statement recorded under section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, admitted that a "Jagrata" was held at Nadal Shiv Temple where in 50 to 60 persons including him and PW. 2 Rakesh kumar, tad participated. He also admitted that a he- goat and a lamb were scrificed as offering to the diety. The meat was then cooked for being distributed as Prasad" to the devotees. He admitted that PW. 2 Rakesh Kumar was deputed for the distribution of the "Prasad". He, however denied that on tang offered prasad by PW. 2, he demanded more which led to an altercation. He also denied that he gave a knife blow to PW. 2 Rakesh Kumar on his abdomen. Though he did not deny the injury to PW. He admitted that PW. 2 Rakesh Kumar was deputed for the distribution of the "Prasad". He, however denied that on tang offered prasad by PW. 2, he demanded more which led to an altercation. He also denied that he gave a knife blow to PW. 2 Rakesh Kumar on his abdomen. Though he did not deny the injury to PW. 2, he has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case by the witnesses who are inimical towards him and who are closely related to PW. 2. He has further gone to state in answer to question NO. 19 of his statement recorded under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, as under:- . "There was pitch darkness in the Kotha. The meat was being cooked outside the Kotha. I have been roped in this case on the basis of suspicion and enmity. It is a false case." 8. The prosecution, in order to bring home the offence against the accused, examined eleven witnesses in all. One witness was examined by the accused in defence. 9. The learned Sessions Judge, upon consideration of the evidence fed before him, came to the conclusion that the offence under section 307, Indian Penal Code stood proved against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. He, accordingly, convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. 10. By virtue of the present appeal, the accused has assailed the conviction and sentence as imposed upon him by the learned Sessions Judge. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also lone through the record of the case. 12. PW. 3 Jaikaran and PW. 7 Hari Singh are the two eye witnesses of the occurrence. The presence of PW. 7 Hari Singh at the "Jagrata1 is admitted by the accused in his statement under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure. Though in such statement, the accused has pleaded ignorance as to the presence of PW. 3 Jaikaran, his witness DW. 1 Jeet Singh has admitted that PW. 3 Jaikaran, was present and that in fact PW 3 was the cook who had cooked the meat. 13. PW. 3 Jaikaran has fully supported the prosecution story. He has categorically stated that when PW. 2 offered prasad to the accuse the latter demanded more. An altercation ensued. The accused threaten™ PW. 2 that he would be killed. 3 Jaikaran, was present and that in fact PW 3 was the cook who had cooked the meat. 13. PW. 3 Jaikaran has fully supported the prosecution story. He has categorically stated that when PW. 2 offered prasad to the accuse the latter demanded more. An altercation ensued. The accused threaten™ PW. 2 that he would be killed. The accused then took out the knife EX.P, I from his pocket and stabbed PW. 2 in the abdomen. PW. 7 Hari Singh though in his examination in chief did not support the prosecution by stating that no occurrence had taken place in his presence since at the relevant time he alongwith Pradhan Chuhar Singh and one Sudershan had gone to a nearby nallah to fetch water, on having been declared hostle and subjected to cross-examination by the prosecution, has admitted to the following facts:- (a) PW. 2 Rakesh Kumar had suffered a stab wound; (b) PW. 2 Rakesh Kumar was telling that the accused had caused the stab wound; (c) The accused was caught and detained by the persons present in the "Kotha"; and (d) The accused was proclaiming that he would commit suicide after killing PW. 2 Rakesh kumar. 14. DW. I Jeet Singh has also admitted that PW. 2 Rakesh Kumar had sustained the stab injury. He has further admitted as under:- (a) The persons sitting in the "Kotha" at the time of occurrence including himself had tried to ascertain as to who had given the knife blow to PW. 2 Rakesh kumar; and (b) Accused was caught hold of and made to sit there. 15. According to PW. 7 due to darkness it could not be known as to who had inflicted the stab wound on the person of PW. 2 and that the accused was caught only on suspicion. 16. The injured PW. 2 Rakesh kumar has categorically deposed- "While distributing meat, I reached acused Rajender Kumar, who was also present there. I offered Rajender Kumar his share, but he demanded more. I told Rajender Kumar that firstly I shall distribute the meat to everyone present and thereafter I shall give him more meat. On this, Rajender Kumar got enraged and he called me a thief and started abusing me. I said to Rajender Kumar that even if was a theif, what could he do against me. On this Rajender kumar said that he would kill me. On this, Rajender Kumar got enraged and he called me a thief and started abusing me. I said to Rajender Kumar that even if was a theif, what could he do against me. On this Rajender kumar said that he would kill me. At this stage, Rajender kumar stabbed me on the left side of my abdomen with a knife. I got an injury on I the abdomen, which started bleeding. I was made to lie by the persons present there and they caught hold of the accused, who was trying to run." 17. During the course of cross-examination he denied the suggestion put to him on behalf of the accused that there was darkness in the Kotha" and that due to such darkness he could not make out as to who had stabbed 18. The defence of the accused, as is evident from the answers to questions No. 18 and 19 of his statement recorded under Section 313. Code of Criminal Procedure, is twofold, namely, due to darkness it could be known who had inflicted the stab injury and that he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to enmity. 19. Both these defences stand belied from the evidence coming on word. Admittedly, a "Jagrata" was organised and being celebrated in a Shiva temple which was followed by liquor and meat. In such function about 50/60 persons were present. It cannot be believed that no arrangements plight would not have been made or that 50/60 persons were wining and dining in darkness. 20. DW. 1 Jeet Singh has stated that liquor was being taken in steel Basses from the bottles. Cooked potatoes and onions were being served with the liquor. The steel glasses, liquor bottles, cooked potatoes and onions were visible. If all these things could be seen, then there must have been some light. Therefore, it cannot be said that the stabbing had taken place in pitched darkness and it could not be known as to who had inflicted the stab injury. 21. Nothing has come on record to show that there is any enmity either between the accused and PW. 2 or between the accused and any the two eye witnesses, PW. 3 and PW. 7. In the absence of any enmity, it cannnot be said that the accused has been falsely implicated. PW. 21. Nothing has come on record to show that there is any enmity either between the accused and PW. 2 or between the accused and any the two eye witnesses, PW. 3 and PW. 7. In the absence of any enmity, it cannnot be said that the accused has been falsely implicated. PW. 2 and the eye witnesses had no motive to let go the actual culprit and/or to falsely implicate the accused. The mere fact that PW. 3 is a cousin brother of PW. 2 would not render his testimony doubtful or unreliable in view of lie fact that the presence of PW. 3 at the spot is admitted and in the absence of any enmity between the parties. 22. A contention was raised on behalf of the accused that though about 50 to 60 persons were present at the time of occurrence, only two out of them, namely, PW. 3 and PW. 7, have been examined. Failure on the part of the prosecution to examine other witnesses casts a shadow of doubt on the truthfulness of the prosecution story. 23. There is no merit in the contention so raised. Under the law, the f prosecution is not obliged to examine all the eye witnesses of the occurrence. The prosecution can examine as many eye witnesses as it considers proper and sufficient to prove its case. 24. As stated above, presence of PW. 2 and PW. 7 at the spot at the time of occurrence stands proved/admitted. There is no reason to disbelieve their evidence. Therefore, failure to examine other eye witnesses would be of no consequence. 25. It was contended on behalf of the accused that even if it be assumed that the stab wound was inflicted by the accused, he cannot be held guilty of the offence under section 307, Indian Penal Code, since he had no intention to kill PW. 2 and that the stab blow was as a result of sudden fight. 26. 25. It was contended on behalf of the accused that even if it be assumed that the stab wound was inflicted by the accused, he cannot be held guilty of the offence under section 307, Indian Penal Code, since he had no intention to kill PW. 2 and that the stab blow was as a result of sudden fight. 26. A constitution bench of the supreme court in while (william) slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1956 SC 116: (1956 Cri LJ 291) while analysing the requirements of Section 300, Indian Penal Code, has observed :- "If there is no intention to kill, then it can hereunder only if- (1) the accused knew that the injury inflicted would be likely to cause death, or (2) that it would be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or (3) that the accused knew that the act must in all probability cause death. 27. Following the above principle, a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High court in Dr A.G. Bhagwat v. U.T. Chandigarh, (1988)3 Crimes 430 : (1989 Cri LJ 214), while dealing with the scope of Section 307, Indian Penal Code, has held:- "...... It is well settled that for conviction under Section 307, I.P.C., if the intention or necessary knowledge to cause death as envisaged I by Section 300, I.P.C., which defines murder, is there then it is immaterial whether or not any hurt was caused to the victim by the accused. In other words, an act though sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death would not constitute an offence under this section if the necessary intention or knowledge on the part of the accused is lacking. Thus for the purposes of this offence what is material is the intention or knowledge and not the cosequenee if the actual act done for the purpose of carrying out that intention. Intent essentially implies purpose and attempt is an actual effort made in execution of the purpose. Therefore, an attempt for purposes of Section 307, I.P.C., should stem from a specific intention to commit murder. Intention and knowledge being a mans state of mind cannot be proved by direct evidence thereof except through his own confession. In the absence of such a confession they can be proved only by circumstantial evidence. Therefore, an attempt for purposes of Section 307, I.P.C., should stem from a specific intention to commit murder. Intention and knowledge being a mans state of mind cannot be proved by direct evidence thereof except through his own confession. In the absence of such a confession they can be proved only by circumstantial evidence. In other words, these are matters of inference from all the circumstances available in a case. Such circumstances may well be motive, the preparation made, the declaration, if any, made by the offender at the time of commission of the offence, the weapon used, the nature of the injuries actually inflicted........." 28. Having given thoughtful consideration to the entire evidence coming on record in the light of the above principle, the intention and knowledge on the part of the accused to kill PW. 2 Rakesh Kumar is writ large. Before inflicting the knife blow, the accused had threatened PW. 2 had declared that he would kill him. The knife blow was given on a vital Hi of the body, that is, the abdomen. The accused can be safely imputed Nth the knowledge that the knife blow, given by him on the abdomen of PW.2would be likely to cause his death. PW. 4 Dr. Ajay Dutta has opined hat stab wound in the abdomen with deep cavity is fatal to life and that had medical treatment not been given well in time the injury would have been dangerous to life. 29. Considering the evidence coming on the record in its totality, the offence under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, stands proved and established against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused, therefore, stands rightly convicted by the learned Sessions Judge. Such conviction does not call for any interference. 30. Insofar as the question of sentence is concerned, the accused stands dealt with leniently by the learned Sessions Judge inasmuch as he has been sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of three years only as against the maximum imprisonment for life prescribed under the law. Therefore, no interference in the quantum of sentence is also called for. 31. Resultantly, the present appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused are maintained. 32. Therefore, no interference in the quantum of sentence is also called for. 31. Resultantly, the present appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused are maintained. 32. The accused, who is on bail under the orders of this Court, is directed to surrender himself to his bail bonds before the learned trial court within a period of four weeks from today to recieve and undergo the sentence imposed upon him. On the failure of the accused to do so, the learned Sessions Judge shall proceed against the accused in accordance j with law. 33. The case property may be dealt with as per the orders of the learned trial court. Appeal dismissed.