ORDER This is a revision petition by the first accused. Five persons were implicated in this case. Accused 1 and 2 are brothers. Accused 3 and 5 are brothers. Accused 4 is the uncle of Accused 3 and 2. It appears that there is some relationship between accused 1, 2 and 4 on the one side and Accused 3 and 5 on the other, though the exact nature of relationship is not known. The accused stood charged for offences under sections 147, 341 and 307 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code. All the accused, except Accused 1 were acquitted. Even A.1 was acquitted of the charge in respect of the charge of causing injury to P.W.2 (second charge). The trial Court viz., the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, convicted A.1 under section 307, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to five years rigorous imprisonment by Order dated 31.8.1982. The Appellate Court viz., the Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, confirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence to two years rigorous imprisonment by Judgment dated 24.12.1982. 2. In this revision case, learned Counsel for the petitioner/first accused made an exclusive plea that the facts proved against the accused would not amount to an offence under section 307, Indian Penal Code. For an offence under section 307, Indian Penal Code, the accused must have either the intention or knowledge or he should have committed the act under such circumstances as if the act would cause death the accused would be guilty of murder. In the instant case, as far as the intention is concerned, there is no proof. The fact that the overt act took place in front of a shop in a village at about 9 p.m. when several persons were present would lead to a contrary conclusion. The motive imputed to the accused is very remote. He is said to have attacked P.W.1 for the reason that he has obtained from A.5 under a compromise a sum of Rs.1700/- one year before for surrendering the land in respect of which he was a tenant. Though the intention is not present, one could safely say that he had knowledge that by the overt act might cause the death of P.W.1. Though the intention is not present, one could safely say that he had knowledge that by the overt act might cause the death of P.W.1. In fact, the following injuries were found on the body of P.W.1: The accused having attacked P.W.1 with aruval on the forehead, could have even caused death if the impact had been a little bit stronger. 3. Let us now turn to the circumstances, section 307, Indian Penal Code, does not punish an attempt for culpable homicide but only an attempt for murder. Any act which is likely to cause death is not murder. It will be a murder only if it does not fall in the cases excepted under section 300, Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the circumstances should be clearly proved so that one can safely come to the conclusion that if the act caused death the accused would be guilty of murder. In the present case, P.W.1 would say that A.1 in the company of Accused 2 to 5 came to the front of one Chettiar's shop and started attacking him with an aruval, reminding him about Rs.1700/- he received from A.5. P.W.1 would say that he attempted to run but still received further cuts, without explaining whether he was prevented from running or not. In fact, there is no evidence to show that the other accused in any manner immobilised the injured P.W.1. Even the case of the prosecution that P.W.2 suffered injuries in his attempt to protect P.W.1 was not believed by the trial Court. Therefore, we do not know exactly under what circumstances A.1 inflicted the injuries found on P.W.1, Whether there was any provocation, whether there was any quarrel between the parties - nothing is disclosed by the prosecution, P.W.1 having chosen to suppress the entire circumstances, for reasons best known to himself. The Investigating Officer himself has not adverted his mind to find out why all of a sudden A.1 attacked P.W.1 in the manner alleged and he accepted blindly the version of P.W.1. Since there is no indicating in this case as to the circumstances under which the overt acts had been committed, it is impossible to sustain the conviction under section 307, Indian Penal Code. The overt acts for which A.1 is responsible would fall, therefore, under section 308, Indian Penal Code. Since there is no indicating in this case as to the circumstances under which the overt acts had been committed, it is impossible to sustain the conviction under section 307, Indian Penal Code. The overt acts for which A.1 is responsible would fall, therefore, under section 308, Indian Penal Code. As far as the sentence is concerned, it is represented that A.1 has already undergone 40 days of imprisonment, that the occurrence took place in the year 1981, that A.1 has neither bad antecedents nor posterior criminal record, that A.1 repents very much for his act and that mercy may be shown to A.1. 4. In the result, the conviction and sentence imposed on A.1 by the Appellate Court are set aside. Instead A.1 is charged under section 308, Indian Penal Code, found guilty thereunder and sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- which shall be paid within four weeks from the date of receipt of the judgment by the trial Court, failing which he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one year. With the above modification in the conviction and sentence, the criminal revision stands dismissed. B.S. ----- Petition dismissed.