B. C. VARMA, J. ( 1 ) THE judgment in this appeal shall also govern the disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 1117 of 1984 and Criminal Appeal No. 824 of 1985. ( 2 ) APPELLANT Tanveer Aquil was charged under section 307, Indian Penal Code for attempting to commit murder of Rajesh Kumar son of Pooranlal Sharma at about 1. 00 P. M (noon time) on 29-1- 1983 near Sashtri Chowk, Kelabadi, Durg. After trial, he has been acquitted of that charge but has been convicted under section 324, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 500/ -. In default of fine, he has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The lower Court has, however, found that the conduct of the appellant did not permit him to be released on probation. He has appealed against his aforesaid conviction and sentence and his appeal is Criminal Appeal No. 803 of 1984. Against his acquittal of charge under section 307, Indian Penal Code, the State has filed Criminal Appeal No. 424 of 1985, after obtaining due leave from the Court. The State has also filed connected Criminal Appeal No. In of 1984 praying for enhancement of the sentence awarded to the appellant even on his conviction under section 324, Indian Penal Code. ( 3 ) ON the date of incident, Rajesh Kumar (P. W. 1) found the appellant coming from the house of a lady addressed by Rajesh Kumar as Sharma auntie. Rajseh Kumar objected to the appellants going to Sharma auntie's house. At this, it is alleged that the appellant took out, a hand-granite from his pocket and threw it at Rajesh Kumar. Soon thereafter, the appellant took out a razor from his pocket and with it inflicted several blows on Rajesh Kumar. Rajesh Kumar lodged the report (Ex P/i) on the same day, i. e. , 29-1-1983 and soon after the incident. The appellant also had reached the police station by that time. He was taken into custody. During investigation, the razor seized at the instance of the appellant and was sent to chemical examiner: Rajesh Kumar was sent for medical examination. He was admitted in the hospital and was discharged only on 7-2-1983. His injury report is Ex. P/4 which was proved by Dr. Shrivastava (P. W. 12) during the course of trial. During investigation, the razor seized at the instance of the appellant and was sent to chemical examiner: Rajesh Kumar was sent for medical examination. He was admitted in the hospital and was discharged only on 7-2-1983. His injury report is Ex. P/4 which was proved by Dr. Shrivastava (P. W. 12) during the course of trial. As many as 13 injuries were found on the person of Rajesh Kumar. All these injuries were simple and, according to Dr. Shrivastava could be caused by sharp cutting weapon like the razor seized at the instance of the appellant. Ex. P/12 is the report of the Serologist according to which, human blood was found on the said razor. At the trial, Savitribai, Jamnabai, Lalit Kumar and Premlatabai were examined as eye witnesses. They all deposed to have seen the incident. Their testimony has been believed by the lower Court. The lower Court also relied the testimony of Dr. Shrivastava and held the appellant guilty of causing injuries to Rajesh Kumar as found by Dr. Shrivastava. From the nature of the injuries and the part of the body upon which they were found and from the attending circumstances, the lower Court found that the appellant never intended to cause death nor did he intend to cause such bodily injuries which could have resulted in death. The Court, therefore, rightly found that the injuries were not inflicted with the object of causing death. On this finding, the appellant has been held guilty of the offence punishable only under section 324, Indian Penal Code. ( 4 ) WE have perused the record ourselves and heard the learned Government Advocate. Accused Tanveer Aquil has engaged Shri V. G. Tamaskar, Advocate practicing at Durg. Intimation of date of hearing was given to Shri Tamaskar. Shri Tamaskar has, however, not presented himself before the Court to argue the matter. After reading the entire oral evidence in the case, we have no doubt that Tanveer Aquil is the person who had caused injuries which were found on the person of Rajesh Kumar at the time of incident. Rajesh Kumar himself as P. W. 1 has given the entire detail of the incident. The only thing worth mentioning in his cross-examination is the suggestion that he snatched the knife from Tanveer Acquit and assaulted him. The suggestion further was that the injuries were self inflicted. Rajesh Kumar himself as P. W. 1 has given the entire detail of the incident. The only thing worth mentioning in his cross-examination is the suggestion that he snatched the knife from Tanveer Acquit and assaulted him. The suggestion further was that the injuries were self inflicted. Thus, there does not appear to be any cross-examination worth the name of this witness. There also does not appear to be any reason as to why he would falsely implicate accused/appellant Tanveer Acquit. His version finds due corroboration from the testimony of Savitribai (P. W 2) Lalit Kumar (P. W. 4) who was also playing cricket with Rajesh Kumar at the relevant time, and Premlatabai (P. W. 6 ). The evidence of at these witnesses inspires confidence and their testimony could not be shaken at all in their cross-examination. The lower Court did well to accept their testimony. ( 5 ) YET another incriminating circumstance found against the appellant is the recovery of bloodstained razor at his instance, This has been amply proved by the testimony of Sub-Inspector Santosh Rao (P. W. 8) and Gendlal (P. W. 7 ). The serologist report is that the razor was found stained with human blood. Injury report (Ex. P/4-A) also lends corroboration to the testimony of these eye-witnesses. Good number of incised wounds which could be caused by the razor were found on the person of Rajesh within three hours of the incident. We have, therefore, no hesitation in accepting the finding of the lower Court that the appellant caused good number of injuries to Rajesh Kumar by a razor. ( 6 ) AN examination of these injuries and testimony of the doctor also show that none of these injuries was likely to cause death. None of them was even resulted in grievous hurt. No injury was caused on any vital part. As the prosecution story shows, the complainant Rajesh Kumar objected to appellant Tanveer Aquils going to the house of Sharma auntie. There appears to be some altercation. It is then that the appellant is said to have thrown a thing like hand-granite and then inflicting blows with a razor. Certainly, it cannot be held under these circumstances that death was either intended or was likely to result. Accused Tanveer Aquil, therefore, has rightly been acquitted of the charge under section 307, Indian Penal Code. It is then that the appellant is said to have thrown a thing like hand-granite and then inflicting blows with a razor. Certainly, it cannot be held under these circumstances that death was either intended or was likely to result. Accused Tanveer Aquil, therefore, has rightly been acquitted of the charge under section 307, Indian Penal Code. We, therefore, uphold his conviction only under section 324, and maintain his acquittal under section 307, Indian Penal Code. ( 7 ) WE, however, feel that under the circumstances, the sentences awarded to accused Tanveer Acquil is low it calls for a jail sentence of some more duration. On the broad day light near a playing ground surrounded by residential houses and on a trifling matter, the accused Tanveer Aquil threw a rocket-like object at Rajesh Kumar and pounced on him with a razor which he had no business to keep with him at that hour of the day. He then was not satisfied with one or two blows but inflicted as many as 13 injuries. All these injuries were incised wounds. In our opinion, he should have been sentenced at least for rigorous imprisonment for one year. ( 8 ) ON the aforesaid finding, we dismiss Criminal Appeal Nos. 803 of 1984 and 424 of 1985. Criminal Appeal No. 1117 of 1984 claiming enhancement of the sentence awarded to accused Tanveer Aquil under section 324, Indian Penal Code is allowed. He is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one Year. Imposition of fine awarded is maintained. Appeals dismissed Post Script: Today when the appeals were posted for delivery of judgment, Shri Tamaskar, learned counsel for the appellants, appeared. He requested for a hearing. He was heard. His main contention has been that the accused/appellant was provoked by the complainant. We have in the earlier part of the judgment shown that the stand so taken has no foundation at all. The accused visited to Sharma auntie was objected to any merely on this he not only threw hand grinate but also used knife and caused stab wounds to the complainant. We are not prepared to believe that this was done because of any provocation from the complainant. It was also urged that the accused Tanveer Aquil has since acquired a job and is now swerving. It was, therefore, urged that a sentence of fine will alone shall meet the ends of justice. We are not prepared to believe that this was done because of any provocation from the complainant. It was also urged that the accused Tanveer Aquil has since acquired a job and is now swerving. It was, therefore, urged that a sentence of fine will alone shall meet the ends of justice. We have considered earlier the question of adequacy of sentence and even after hearing Shri Tamaskar, we do not find any reason to differ from the view taken by us in the earlier part of the judgment. The contentions are, therefore, rejected. .