JUDGMENT G.B. Singh, J. - This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.2.1982 by Vth Addl. Sessions Judge, Faizabad convicting the appellant under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentencing him to five years R.I. 2. The case of the prosecution was that on the night between 7/8.12.79 at about 11 P.M. Smt. Amrita complainant was sleeping inside her house. Siya Ram appellant entered into her house upon which she woke up and she caught hold of Siya Ram and raised alarm whereupon several persons of the village rushed. Siya Ram in order to extricate himself gave her several knife blows. Siya Ram was apprehended inside the house with the blood stained knife. Next day he was taken to the police station where Smt. Amrita lodged the first information report at 6.30 a.m. On that report a case under section 307 I.P.C. was registered. Siya Ram was taken into custody. The blood stained knife was also taken by the police in his custody and its Fard was prepared, Smt. Amrita was sent for medical examination. She was examined in the District Hospital, Faizabad on 8.12.79 at 9.50 A.M. by Dr. R.K. Verma P.W.5. He found four incised wounds and two lacerated wounds on different parts of her body. Sub-Inspector Jagat Narain Singh P.W. 4 investigated the case and submitted charge- sheet. The Investigating Officer found blood stains inside the house of Smt. Amrita and on the knife recovered. They were sent to the Chemical Examiner and Serologist. Human blood was found on the knife as well as in the blood stained earth. On behalf of the prosecution Sheo Raj P.W. 1 Kashi Ram P.W. 2 and Smt. Amrita P.W.3 were examined as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Amrita, husband of Smt. Amrita, was examined as a court witness (C.W.1). The accused denied that he entered into the house of Smt. Amrita and inflicted knife injuries on her. His defence was that he was arrested from his house and falsely implicated in the case on account of enmity. He did not examine any witness in defence. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge believed the prosecution evidence and convicted and sentenced Siya Ram, appellant as mentioned above. Feeling dissatisfied with it has filed the present appeal. 3. His defence was that he was arrested from his house and falsely implicated in the case on account of enmity. He did not examine any witness in defence. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge believed the prosecution evidence and convicted and sentenced Siya Ram, appellant as mentioned above. Feeling dissatisfied with it has filed the present appeal. 3. It was firstly argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution story is unnatural and improbable, it has not been proved by satisfactory evidence and the medical evidence is not consistent with the prosecution story. He further argued that the evidence led by the prosecution was wrongly believed by the trial court. I do not find any substance in this argument. 4. Smt. Amrita P.W.3 is an injured witness. She has made consistent statement in support of the prosecution case. The only improvement pointed out in her statement is that she did not allege in the first information report that the appellant attempted to steal batloi whereupon an outcry was made. Even if this improvement is excluded from consideration it does not make her statement about the main story of assault an her by knife by the appellant incredible in any way. It was also argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that Smt. Amrita P.W. 3 is a woman of easy-virtues and she was assaulted by knife by her husband when he found her with some other person in an objectionable state. Smt. Amrita P.W.3 categorically denied this suggestion, Amrita C.W. 1, who is husband of Smt. Amrita and was not present at the time of the incident, has denied that he caused knife injuries to her in connection with some incident as suggested on behalf of the accused. It was also suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant that she is stating against the appellant on account of ill will because her pigs used to cause damage to the crop of the appellant against which he protested. Even if it is assumed that her pigs caused damage to the crop of the appellant she could not have any grievance against the appellant on this score. The statement of Smt. Amrita P.W.3 has remained unshaken through out and the criticism levelled against her statement cannot be accepted. 5. The statement of Smt. Amrita P.W.3 has been corroborated by Sheo Raj P.W.1 and Kashi Ram P.W.2. The statement of Smt. Amrita P.W.3 has remained unshaken through out and the criticism levelled against her statement cannot be accepted. 5. The statement of Smt. Amrita P.W.3 has been corroborated by Sheo Raj P.W.1 and Kashi Ram P.W.2. They being neighbours of Smt. Amrita are natural and probable witnesses. They have no animus against the appellant to make false statement. Their testimony fully corroborates the statement of Smt. Amrita P.W.3. At the time of arguments learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any circumstances for discarding their statements. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, rightly believed their testimony. 6. There was no delay in the first information report. The facts disclosed in it are consistent with the deposition made by Smt. Amrita P.W.3. The medical evidence is also consistent with the case of the prosecution. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that there were two lacerated wounds on the person of Smt. Amrita and they could not be caused by knife and as such the prosecution story could not be believed. I do not find any force in this argument. It has come in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma P.W. 5 that these lacerated wounds could be caused by fall. It has come in the statement of the witnesses of the occurrence that Smt. Amrita while being attacked by knife fell down on the ground. Immediately before the incident she was lying on her charpoy. She was found lying or, the ground by the witnesses while the accused was giving her knife blows. All this explains the two lacerated wounds found on her person. Thus the medical evidence is not inconsistent with the prosecution story. There is no evidence on the record supporting the suggestion of the accused that he was arrested from his house. The circumstance of his arrest inside the house, recovery of blood stained Knife from his possession and his taking to the police station along with the blood stained knife also go in favour of the credibility of the prosecution story. The report of the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist that human blood was found on the knife is also consistent with the prosecution story. There is no reliable evidence supporting the suggestion of the accused that he has been falsely implicated on account if enmity. Smt. Amrita was sleeping all alone inside her house. The report of the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist that human blood was found on the knife is also consistent with the prosecution story. There is no reliable evidence supporting the suggestion of the accused that he has been falsely implicated on account if enmity. Smt. Amrita was sleeping all alone inside her house. Taking advantage of the situation the accused could enter into her house and on the outcry made by her he could assault her by knife. The story set up by the prosecution is, therefore, probable. 7. From all this, I am convinced that the appellant assaulted Smt. Amrita by knife and caused knife injuries to her as alleged by the prosecution. 8. It was secondly argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the act of the appellant in causing knife injuries to Smt. Amrita does not amount to an attempt of murder punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. He further argued in this connection that at the most he can be held guilty for an offence of voluntarily causing hurt by knife which is an instrument of stabbing punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. I find much force in this argument, Siya Ram appellant had no motive to commit murder of Smt. Amrita. There is no evidence on record showing that the injuries caused by giving knife blows to Smt. Amrita were grieviious Dr. R.K. Verma failed to state that the in juries caused to Smt. Amrita were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause her death. Just because the offender used a dangerous weapon he cannot be deemed to have acted with the intention of causing death. There can be no presumption that the accused intended to cause death merely because he used a dangerous weapon to cause hurt. The intention of the accused is to be established from nature of the act, actually committed by him and from other surrounding circumstances. In order to bring the offence under Section 307 whom to the accused the prosecution must establish that his intention or knowledge was of the description mentioned in Section 300 I.P.C. Where the evidence is not sufficient to establish with certainty the existence of the requisite intention or knowledge he can only be convicted under Section 324 I.P.C. if the injury caused by a dangerous weapon is simple. The act contemplated by Section 307 is an act which, by itself, must ordinarily be capable of causing death. In the present case the act of the accused falls short of this specification. Since he caused simple injuries by dangerous weapon he can be held guilty for an offence under Section 324 I.P.C. The appellant can, therefore, be convicted under Section 324 I.P.C. 9. The maximum sentence for an offence under Section 324 I.P.C. is three years. The manner and the circumstances in which the appellant caused knife injuries to an unprotected lady at the odd hours of the night inside her house indicate that he deserves deterrent punishment. In my opinion two years rigorous imprisonment for this offence will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. 10. The appeal is, therefore, partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 307 I.P.C. is set aside. He is convicted under Section 324 I.P.C. and is sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled. He shall surrender himself to serve out the sentence.