GULAB C. GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal filed under section 374 (2) Criminal Procedure Code is directed against the judgment dated 1-4-1983 passed by Shri R. K. Trivedi. Sessions Judge, East Nimar, Khandwa in Sessions Trial No. 65 of 1982 convicting the appellant under section 307 I. P. C. and sentencing him to four year's rigorous imprisonment. ( 2 ) APPELLANT Kallu was put on trial for offences under sections 307 and 392/397 I. P. C. for attempting murder of Bashiruddin (P. W. 1) and robbing him of a wrist watch on 30th September 1979 at about 4. 00 p. m. at Dhanwani forest of village Gannor. The appellant and complainant Bashiruddin belong to the same village it is alleged that Bashiruddin was grazing his cattle in the forest on the date of incident when appellant Kallu approached him with a request to cut his babul tree. Since Bashiruddin agreed, both of them started walking together for the purpose. Appellant was walking behind Bashiruddin. After going some distance, the appellant is alleged to have given two successive blows on the neck of Bashiruddin by an axe and snatched his wrist, watch. Since Bashiruddin raised an alarm, Shafi (P. W. 2 ). Nasibuddin (P. W. 3) and Sukhial (P. W. 4) rushed to the place of incident and, therefore the appellant run away. Bashiruddin was taken to Police Station Beldi where the report (Ex. P. 1) was lodged at 8. 00 P. M. Medical Examination by Dr. N. S. Mandloi (P. W. 7) revealed two incised wounds on both sides of the neck of Bashiruddin besides one abrasion on his chest and lacerated wound on the vault of the skull. After investigation, the appellant was put on trial as aforesaid. Learned Sessions Judge held that evidence of Bashiruddin (P. W. 1) was fully supported by Shafi Mohd. 1 (P. W. 2) and Nasibuddin (P. W. 3) and, therefore, it was established beyond doubt that the appellant caused the injuries as aforesaid. The learned Judge however, found no reliable evidence to hold that the appellant had snatched the wrist, watch as alleged. That is how the appellant was acquitted of the offence of robbery, but convicted of attempt to murder. ( 3 ) A perusal of F. I. R. would indicate that it is the first available version of the incident and lodged without any delay. That is how the appellant was acquitted of the offence of robbery, but convicted of attempt to murder. ( 3 ) A perusal of F. I. R. would indicate that it is the first available version of the incident and lodged without any delay. The distance between the place of incident and the Police Station was 9 Kms and yet the report was lodged in five hours. From the report, it is clear that the appellant hit Bashiruddin on his neck by giving two successive blows. Medical report proved by Dr. Mandloi (P. W. 7) fully supports the use of the axe as stated in the report. Bashiruddin (P. W. 1) has given clear and specific evidence that these injuries were caused by the appellants by using his axe. It is true that in the Court statement. Bashiruddin alleges three axe blows as against two cited by him in the First I. R. It may. Therefore be that he was trying to justify a lacerated wound on his person during medical examination. This by itself is not sufficient to discredit his version, about two axe blows and incised wounds. There is nothing in his cross-examination to doubt his aforesaid version. He has, of course not been able to stand the cross-examination about snatching of the wrist watch alleged to be with him at the time of the incident. The appellant has however, got the benefit of this weakness during the session trial and has been acquitted of the offence of robbery. There is nothing in the cross-examination of Bashirudding (P. W. 1) to suggest any previous enmity or any other motive of falsely making accusation (sic) against the appellant. It is improbable that a person would shelter the real culprit causing such bodily injuries and falsely make accusation against an innocent person. Evidence of Bashiruddin (P. W. 1) is fully supported by Shaft Mohd. (P. W. 2) Nasibuddin (P. W. 3) and Sukhlal (P. W. 4), who had rushed to the spot on hearing shouts of Bashiruddin and had taken him to the Police Station. They are the persons rushing to the help of an innocent victim having no motive whatsoever to make any false accusation against the appellant. (P. W. 2) Nasibuddin (P. W. 3) and Sukhlal (P. W. 4), who had rushed to the spot on hearing shouts of Bashiruddin and had taken him to the Police Station. They are the persons rushing to the help of an innocent victim having no motive whatsoever to make any false accusation against the appellant. Under the circumstances this Court is in full agreement with the learned Sessions Judge that it was the appellant who caused injuries on the person of Bashiruddin (P. W. 1) by using an axe. ( 4 ) THE question, however, is as to what offence the appellant is said to have committed. The learned Session Judge has found him guilty of offence under section 307 I. P. C. only because the axe was used on a vital part of the body. This by itself is not sufficient to infer an intention to kill. The manner in which the incident has been narrated by Bashiruddin himself would indicate that the appellant did have any previous enmity or motive to kill him. Then, Bashiruddin was having nothing worthwhile to induce the appellant to kill him. Under the circumstances, simply because axe has been accused it would not be proper to hold that the appellant would have been guilty of offence under section 302 I. P. C. if Bashiruddin had died. The axe has not damaged any vital part of the body. Then, the appellant himself is a person lacking maturity and appears to have caused the injury for the sake of fun. In such a situation, if Bashirudhing had died, the appellant would not have been convicted of murder under section 302 I. P. C. In such an eventuality, he would have been at the most convicted for offence under section 304 I. P. C. Part-IT. Under the circumstances, the appellant would only be guilty of offence under section 308 and not under section 307 I. P. C. In this view of the matter, it is not possible to sustain the appellants conviction for offence under section 307 I. P. C. The appellant is accordingly acquitted of the aforesaid offence and is instead found guilty and convicted of offence under section 308 I. P. C. 5. Since the offence under section 308 I. P. C. in a lesser offence than the offence under section 307 I. P. C. , the appellant deserves a lesser punishment than what has been inflicted. Considering the nature of injuries and young age of the appellant, a jail sentence of two years would, in the opinion of the Court, meet the ends of justice. The appellant is accordingly sentenced to suffer imprisonment for two years. ( 5 ) THE appeal partly succeeds and is allowed. The appellant is held guilty of offence under section 308 I. P. C. and sentenced to R. I. for two years. Since the appellant is of bail, be is directed to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khandwa on 26-6-87 to receive the judgment and undergo the sentence. .