JUDGMENT : G.B. Patnaik, J. - The two Petitioners were convicted u/s 307, Indian Penal Code, by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Rourkela and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. Along with them one Umar Khan was also tried for having committed the offence u/s 307/109, Indian Penal Code, but he was acquitted of the said charge by the learned Trial Judge. On appeal, the conviction and sentence passed against the two Petitioners having been upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, the present revision has been preferred. 2. It is the prosecution case that those two Petitioners attempted to commit murder of Jagir Singh (P.W. 11) at 11.30 p.m. on 16-6-1979 while the injured was returning home after witnessing a festival. It was alleged by the prosecution that the injured had a cloth shop in Sector 15 in Rourkela Town and they had also a Tempo. Petitioner Wasiq was a tempo Driver. The acquitted accused Umer Khan is the father of the Petitioner Farooq and said Umer had taken cloths on credit horn the shop of the injured and did not pay the money in spite of repeated demands. On the date of occurrence while the injured was returning at 11.30 p.m., both the Petitioners were present near the taxi stand with a motor cycle. It is further alleged that while the injured was proceeding on his cycle, these two Petitioners came in a motor cycle from behind and prevented the injured from moving further and thereupon attacked the injured and inflicted several injuries with a knife. The injured gave resistance, but could not deter the Petitioners from inflicting the injuries. The injured then went to the verandah of Quarters No. A/4 and knocked the door and cried allowed to save him. On hearing his alarm, P.Ws. 2 and 3 came there and found him in the condition in which he had been injured. The Petitioners had left the place by that time and p. ws 2 and 3 informed the brother of the injured whereupon P.Ws. 1 and 10 arrived there with their Tempo and carried the injured to the Ispat General Hospital where he was admitted as an indoor patient. P.W. 1 then lodged the F.I.R. (Ext. 1) at Rourkela Township Police Station and the Inspector Shri Tewari registered a case and directed Sub-Inspector Shri Jena (P.W. 13) to take up the investigation. 1 and 10 arrived there with their Tempo and carried the injured to the Ispat General Hospital where he was admitted as an indoor patient. P.W. 1 then lodged the F.I.R. (Ext. 1) at Rourkela Township Police Station and the Inspector Shri Tewari registered a case and directed Sub-Inspector Shri Jena (P.W. 13) to take up the investigation. In course of investigation, P.W. 13 seized the blood-stained knife, blood-stained earth, wrist-watch and Chappal etc. from the spot. He also seized the broken gate of Quarters No. A/4 as well as the blood-stained clothes of the injured. Several other articles were seized and then on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. On being committed to the Court of Session, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge tried the Petitioners. 3. The plea of the Petitioners is one of denial. 4. Prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses of whom P.W. 11 is the injured and P.Ws. 1 and 10 are his brothers; P.Ws. 2 and 3 are the residents of the neighbouring quarters who arrived at the spot of occurrence on hearing the shout from P.W. 11; P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6 are seizure witnesses and so also P.W. 12; P.W. 7 are witnesses in whose presence, the Investigating Officer collected the scrappings of dried blood-stained marks from the motor cycle P.Ws. 8 and 9 are the Medical Officers of the Ispat General Hospital who had treated the injured. Ext. 7 is the injury report of the injured. The two Courts of fact, namely, the learned Trial Judge, and the Additional Sessions Judge relying on the evidence of the injured (P.W. 11) which is fully corroborated by the medical evidence as well as the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 have held that it is the Petitioners who assaulted the injured on the date of occurrence and considering the nature of injuries as well as the parts of the body of the injured w here the injuries have been found, came to the conclusion that the offence u/s 307, Indian Penal Code, had been well established against the Petitioners. 5. Though the plea of the Petitioners is one of denial, Mr. Mund, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners does not challenge the finding of the two Courts below which has been arrived at on consideration of the evidence that the injuries on the injured were inflicted by the Petitioners. 5. Though the plea of the Petitioners is one of denial, Mr. Mund, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners does not challenge the finding of the two Courts below which has been arrived at on consideration of the evidence that the injuries on the injured were inflicted by the Petitioners. The only point urged by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that the ingredients to attract the provisions of Section 307, Indian Penal Code, are lacking and, therefore, the Petitioners can at best be convicted u/s 324, Indian Penal Code. 6. The doctor (P.W. 8) who examined the injured (P.W. 11) on 17-6-1979 immediately after he was admitted into the hospital found the following injuries on the person: (i) incised wound 1" x 1/2" x 1" at the back against third thorasic spine. (ii) Incised wound 2" x 1/2 x 1/2 on medial border of right scapula. (iii) Lacerated wound 2" x 1/2" x 1/2" on left deltoid. (iv) Lacerated wound on right leg 1 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/4" ? 5" below right knee. (v) Incised wound on abdomen 1" x 1/4" x 1/6" over right hypochondriac region. (vi) Lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/2" over right arm. (vii) Lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/4" over right arm. (viii) Lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/6" over left shoulder. (ix) Incised wound 2" x 1/2" x 1/4" over right scapula 1/4" below the inferior angle of right scapula. It is also the opinion of the doctor that all the injuries are simple in nature and may have been caused by sharpcutting weapon. 7. To attract the provisions of Section 307, Indian Penal Code, two ingredients are required to be proved, firstly an evil intention or knowledge and secondly, the act done with such intention of knowledge. It is not every act done which would be sufficient to attract the said section. A person commits an offence u/s 307, Indian Penal Code. when he has an intention to commit murder, and in puruance of that intention does an act towards its commission irrespective of the fact whether that act is the penultimate act or not. The intention to commit the offence of murder means that the person concerned has the intention to do certain act with the necessary intention or knowledge contained in Section 300, Indian Penal Code. The intention to commit the offence of murder means that the person concerned has the intention to do certain act with the necessary intention or knowledge contained in Section 300, Indian Penal Code. Though it cannot be said that the accused had no intention to commit murder simply because the injuries received by the victim were of a simple nature, yet at the same time the injuries inflicted be taken into consideration in arriving at the conclusion about the intention of the person who had attacked. The nature of injury may afford an assistance in determining the intention. Intention can also be gathered from the nature of weapon and the seat of injuries. It is the entire facts and circumstances of the case which are to be looked into to find out whether the accused had the requisite intention to commit murder or not. Once it is established that the accused had the requisite intention, the nature of the act is immaterial. In the case of Sarju Prasad Vs. State of Bihar it was held that the mere fact that the injury actually inflicted by the accused did not cut any vital organ is not by itself sufficient to take the act out of the purview of Section 307, Indian Penal Code. It was indicated in the aforesaid decision that the state of mind of the accused has to be deduced from the surrounding circumstances and motive would be a sufficient circumstance. But if the evidence adduced is not sufficient to establish with certainty existence of requisite intention or knowledge, then the accused cannot be convicted u/s 307, Indian Penal Code. 8. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles, the evidence of P.W. 11 has to be examined. According to P.W. 11. the two Petitioners were waiting with a motor cycle near the taxi stand and when P.W. 11 reached quarters No. A/4 of Sector-5, the Petitioners came from behind and stood in front of him and called him to stop. Immediately thereafter Wasiq gave a fist blow to which the injured also gave a fist blow to the accused whereupon accused Wasiq brought out a knife and gave a knife blow. The injured then stood on the road and accused Farooq caught hold of the injured from behind whereupon accused Wasiq gave one or two knife blows on his hand. Immediately thereafter Wasiq gave a fist blow to which the injured also gave a fist blow to the accused whereupon accused Wasiq brought out a knife and gave a knife blow. The injured then stood on the road and accused Farooq caught hold of the injured from behind whereupon accused Wasiq gave one or two knife blows on his hand. For some time, there was a tussle between the injured and the accused persons and the injured managed to escape from the clutches and tried to run towards the quarters and in fact broke open one side of the gate of that quarters and tried to save himself by throwing that portion of the gate at accused Wasiq. The said portion of the gate struck the hand of Petitioner Wasiq. Accused Farooq then picked up the knife and came towards the injured and again there was a tussle and at that point of time accused Farooq inflicted knife injury on the back of the injured at different places. When the injured raised hulla, the two Petitioners Wasiq and Farooq left the place of occurrence. This being the narration of events which happened on the fateful day and the nature of injuries as found by the doctor being simple in nature, in my view, it cannot be said that the accused-Petitioners had the prerequisite intention or knowledge to commit murder of the injured. The occurrence started with assault by a fist blow and thereupon some minor injuries have been caused on the person of the injured though with a knife and also not on any vital portion of the body. I am therefore of the view that the conviction of the Petitioners u/s 307, Indian Penal Code, cannot be sustained though they may be convicted u/s 324, Indian Penal Code. While, therefore, I set aside,he conviction arid sentence passed against the Petitioners u/s 307, Indian Penal Code, I convict them u/s 324, Indian Penal Code. 9. The question then remains to be considered is as to what would be the sentence for their conviction u/s 324, Indian Penal Code, Mr. Mund, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, contends that this is a fit case where the Court should pass appropriate orders invoking the jurisdiction u/s 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'). Mund, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, contends that this is a fit case where the Court should pass appropriate orders invoking the jurisdiction u/s 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'). Section 360 of the Code provides for the release on probation of good conduct or after admonition any person not under 21 years of age who is convicted of an offence punishable with fine only or with imprisonment for a term of seven years or less, or any person under 21 years of age or any woman who is convicted of an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment of life, if no previous offence is proved against the offender and if it appears that the Court, having regard to the age, character and antecedents of the offender, and to the circumstances in which the offence was committed, that it is expedient that the offender should be released on probation of good conduct or after admonition. If the Court refrains from dealing with an offender u/s 360 or under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act or any other law for the treatment, training and rehabilitation of youthful offenders where the Court could have done so, Section 361 of the Code which is a new provision in the 1973 Code makes it mandatory for the Court to record in its judgment the special reasons for not doing so. Thus Section 361 casts a duty upon the Court to apply the provisions of Section 360 of the Code whereever it is possible to do so and to state special reasons if it does not do so. The special reasons contemplated u/s 361 must be such as to compel the Court to hold that it is impossible to reform or rehabilitate the offender after examining the matter with due regard to the age, character and antecedents of the offender and the circumstances in which the offence was committed. This is indicative of the legislative intent that a reformation and not deterrence has been the object of the administration of criminal justice. Sub-section (4) of Section 360 empowers even the revisional Court to invoke the jurisdiction u/s 360 of the Code. This is indicative of the legislative intent that a reformation and not deterrence has been the object of the administration of criminal justice. Sub-section (4) of Section 360 empowers even the revisional Court to invoke the jurisdiction u/s 360 of the Code. Even bearing in mind the object with which the two provisions, namely Sections 360 and 361 of the Code have been en grafted in the Code and also keeping in mind the modern approach to reform and not to deter, when I examine the materials in the present case, I am not persuaded to agree with the contention of Mr. Mund, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that this is a fit case where the Petitioners should be released on admonition without sentencing them to imprisonment. The two Petitioners kept themselves waiting till 11.30 p.m. till the return of the injured from the festival and stopped him on a lonely road at midnight where no other person could be present from preventing the Petitioners from doing the act and then started assaulting him just because the injured wanted them to pay back the value of the articles which they had purchased on credit from his shop. In my opinion, this would not be a tit case where the Petitioners should be treated u/s 360 of the Code and I would, therefore, decline to invoke my jurisdiction under the said prevision. Keeping in view, however, the facts and circumstances of the present case, for the conviction of the Petitioners u/s 324, Indian Penal Code, I would sentence them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. 10. Subject to the aforesaid modification regarding conviction and sentence, this Criminal Revision is disposed of.