JUDGMENT S.M. Daud, J. - This appeal takes exception to the conviction and sentence recorded against the Appellant for the alleged commission of an offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case is that the Appellant-Accused, the injured Rajaram, his wife Laxmibai and witnesses Sitaram and Shankar are all residents of village Wangi, Taluka South Solapur, District Solapur. Rajaram is a fisherman and takes the right to catch fish from different tanks in South Solapur and the nearby areas. In the year 1980 he bad gone to catch fish from a tank located at Umaraga. Left behind at his home during his absence was his wife Laxmibai. In the vi11age there is a flour mill run by P.W. 7 Bhimashankar Sidhappa Jawalkote. The flour mill is looked after by his nephew Mallinath. Some days prior to 8 December 1980, the accused went to the flour mill and while there he was asked to attend to the grinding of corn by Mallinath, who wanted to answer a call of nature. - While the accused was looking after the mill, Rajaram's wife Laxmibai came there. The accused first asked her as to where her husband had gone. After making sure that Rajaram was out and not likely to return for some 4 to 5 days, the Accused suggested that she meet him at a particular place where they could have sexual intercourse. This angered Laxmibai and she left the place weeping. Her father who was then at her home, was informed of what had happened and he, i.e. Gundiba, promised to take up the matter with the owner of the flour mill. Gundiba spoke to P.W. Bhimashankar and when the latter berated the Accused for his doings, the Accused denied that anything of the kind mentioned by Laxmibai had taken place. Laxmibai spoke to her husband of all what had happened upon his return from Umaraga. 3. On 8 December 1980, Rajaram went to the river abutting the abadi. Sighting the Accused he asked as to why he had made an indecent offer to his wife. The Accused far from being could down retaliated by abusing and charging at him with a knife. A scuffie of sorts ensued between the two and the Accused used the knife to inflict injuries on the person of Rajaram. Sighting the Accused he asked as to why he had made an indecent offer to his wife. The Accused far from being could down retaliated by abusing and charging at him with a knife. A scuffie of sorts ensued between the two and the Accused used the knife to inflict injuries on the person of Rajaram. He would have done greater harm but for the providential arrival of Sitaram who rescued Rajaram. The incident was also seen by Shankar. Rajaram's injuries were serious and his intestine had come out. These were tied securely and Rajaram was carried to a hospital. "The Medical Officer at the General Hospital at Solapur found on the person of Rajaram a stab injury and an incised wound. The former was grievous in nature, and for timely treatment would have proved fatal. Fortunately Rajaram survived. A report of the occurrence was given and in the course of the investigation, upon an information furnished by the Accused, the knife used by him was recovered. In due course the investigation was over and a charge sheet lodged in the Court of the Magistrate having jurisdiction. That Magistrate after conducting the usual enquiry committed the Accused to stand trial in the Sessions Court at Solapur. 4. The Additional Sessions Judge before whom the case came up, called upon the Accused to show cause why he should not be convicted for the commission of an offence punishable under section 307 or in the alternative 326 of I.P.C Accused pleaded not guilty. His defence was that he had not made any indecent proposal to Laxmibai, that, the lady had falsely accused him and that he repeatedly spoken of his innocence. On 8 December, 1980 Rajaram, Sitaram and Shankar waylaid him. They were armed with a pickaxe, rope and other instruments They had started beating him and in order to save himself he took out the knife that he was carrying arid this knife was flourished by him in different directions to ward off the assailants. He had lodged a report of this with the police and the police had sent him for examination and treatment to the primary Health Centre at Mandrup. He was not guilty and deserved an acquittal. 5. He had lodged a report of this with the police and the police had sent him for examination and treatment to the primary Health Centre at Mandrup. He was not guilty and deserved an acquittal. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined a number of witnesses including Rajaram, Sitaram, Shankar, Laxmibai, Bhimashankar Sidhappa Jawalkote, and the Medical Officer who had examined and treated Rajaram as also the Accused. After the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was over, the Accused was examined under section 313 at which stage he came out with a series of negative answers and the defence summarised above. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the guilt of the Accused under/ section 307, IPC. On the point of sentence after hearing the Accused, the learned Judge sentenced him to 4 years R.I. Accused has undergone about 32 days of imprisonment. 6. Having regard to the submissions made before me, the points for determination are (I) Whether the prosecution has established that the Accused had committed a murderous assault falling under section 307 IPC? (II) Whether the sentence imposed on the Accused is excessive? (III) What order? My findings, for reasons given below; are- (I) Yes. (II) Yes. (III) Appeal partly allowed as per order. 7. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that a close reading of the evidence and circumstances would establish that his client had acted in self defence. It is not possible to agree with this submission. The prosecution version is borne out by Rajaram. Sitar am and Shankar More important than what these witnesses had to say in Court is the report which was lodged by Sitaram fairly soon after the occurrence. In substance the said report which is at Exh. 27 is in conformity with the depositions of Sitaram, Rajaram, and Shankar. That the Accused had made an indecent offer to Laxmibai is spoken of by that lady as also Bhimshankar Sidhappa Jawalkote, Rajaram and Sitaram. Counsel that had this version been true Rajaram would have gone immediately after his return from village and berated the accused. This submission cannot be accepted for Rajaram had, other chores to attend to besides reproving the Accused for misbehaving with his wife. In any case what is more important is the sequence of events on 8 December 1980. Counsel that had this version been true Rajaram would have gone immediately after his return from village and berated the accused. This submission cannot be accepted for Rajaram had, other chores to attend to besides reproving the Accused for misbehaving with his wife. In any case what is more important is the sequence of events on 8 December 1980. That on that day the accused and Rajaram confronted each other somewhere near the village river is an admitted fact. Also admitted is the fact that a scuffle of sorts took place between them, accused contends that Rajaram was backed by Sitaram and Shankar all armed with different weapons bent upon inflicting a beating upon him. This version is impossible to accept, for, had that been the object of the three persons, they would have found no difficulty in belabouring and giving the accused a thrashing. On the other hand, it was Rajaram who was so beaten as to virtually be on the verge of death. The injuries sustained by Rajaram were a stab injury and an incised wound. The first injury was 1" X ¼" X cavity deep. This shows that the weapon was forcibly thrust. No exception has been taken to the opinion of Dr. Wakure that Rajaram would have died but for timely medical assistance. Even the second injury which Rajaram had received was in no manner a trifling one. It was an incised wound on the left upper arm measuring ½" X ½ " x muscle deep. As against this, the Accused has sustained a mere contused lacerated wound on the left parietal region and an abrasion on the neck. Dr. Dinni opined that both these injuries were simple and that they could have been caused by the accused falling on surface which was hard and rough. Rajaram does not conceal the fact that a scuffie of sorts had taken place between him and the accused and that he had given the accused chappal blows. There from it is not to be inferred that Rajaram was the aggressor. According to him it was the accused who went on the offensive on being questioned as to why he misbehaved with Laxmibai. Therefore on probabilities, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was right in holding that the accused had committed a murderous assault and that but for timely treatment' the victim would have died. 8. According to him it was the accused who went on the offensive on being questioned as to why he misbehaved with Laxmibai. Therefore on probabilities, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was right in holding that the accused had committed a murderous assault and that but for timely treatment' the victim would have died. 8. Learned Counsel for the accused submits that the remaining sentence of imprisonment be deleted. In support of this submission, learned Counsel points to the long interval that has elapsed between the commission of the offence and today, the expense to which the Accused has been put to in the trial and the Appeal and his unblemished past prior to 8 December 1980 as also thereafter. I see no reason to disagree with this submission. Accused has spent. 32 days in custody and this coupled with a fairly substantial fine should meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the sentence imposed by the trial Court is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone and a fine of Rs. 3000/-. In the event of the fine not being paid, the Appellant will undergo additional R.I. for 32 years. Appellant is given one month's times as from the date the writ reaches the Sessions Court at Solapur, to pay the fine Writ, be sent down as early as possible. Once the fine is paid the bail bonds furnished by and on behalf of the Appellant shall stand cancelled. Out of the fine amount if recovered, a sum of Rs. 2500/- shall go as compensation to Rajaram. Appeal partly allowed by confirming the conviction under section 307 I.P.C. and variation of the sentence as indicated above. Appeal partly allowed.