G. B. SINGH, J. This is an appeal against the conviction and sentence of Krishna-appellant for the offence under Section 307, I. P. C. 2. The case of the prosecution was that Krishna, appellant on 29-11-1983 at about 4. 30 p. m. in front of the office of Executive Engineer Hydel Depart ment, Sultanpur Police Station Kotwali, Sultanpur fired country made pistol upon Vinod Kumar and thereby caused several lire arm injuries to him. On the alarm raised Krishna and his associates ran away. The occurrence was seen by several persons present on the spot. It was also the case of the prosecution that Jagannath Lal father of Vinod Kumar injured, on one hand, and Avanendra Pratap Singh and Surendra Pratap Singh, on the other, are on ligitating terms since long. Jagannath Lal won some of the cases against the two persons on account of which they were harbouring ill-will against him and his sons Vinod Kumar and Sudhir Kumar. Vinod Kumar is a Revenue Clerk in the office of the Executive Engineer Hydel Department, Sultanpur whereas his elder brother Sudhir Kumar is Lekhpal in Tahsil Sadar. Shailendra alias Pappu son of Surendra Pratap Singh is a bad character. Krishna accused is his associate. Krishna attempted to commit murder by firing country made pistol at the instance of Shailendra alias Pappu. On 29-11-1985 at about 4. 30 p. m. Sudhir Kumar had gone to the office of Vinod Kumar inform him that he was going on portal and so he would not go to home. Vinod Kumar had come out of the office to leave his brother and while proceeding towards north from the office with that object, Krishna fired country made pistol upon him. 3. The first information report was lodged by Vinod Kumar injured at the Police Station Kotwali, Sultanpur on the same day at 5. 00 p. m. On that report case under Section 307,i. P. C. was registered and Vinod Kumar was sent to Hospital, Sultanpur for medical examination. His injuries were examined there on the same day at 5. 20 p. m. by Dr. R. S. Agarwal (P. W. 3 ). He found following injuries on his person : (1) Multiple punctured wound over the whole of face, extending from right ear upto left side of ear 4 cm. in front of it. Both side of forehead, all over size, 1 cm. X. 1 cm. 20 p. m. by Dr. R. S. Agarwal (P. W. 3 ). He found following injuries on his person : (1) Multiple punctured wound over the whole of face, extending from right ear upto left side of ear 4 cm. in front of it. Both side of forehead, all over size, 1 cm. X. 1 cm. x skin to skin deep upto 3x3 cm. (2) A punctured wound in left eye 4 o clock position just adjacent to Iris, with sub-conjunctival haemorrhage on left eye on medical aspect, with echymosis of both eye lids on left side, over 4 cm. X 2. 5 cm. (3) Echymosis of both eye lid right side over the upper eye lid 4cm. X 1. 5 cm. with sub-conjunctival haemorrhage on medical aspect of right eye. (4) Multiple punctured wound on both lips with lacerated wound on the upper lip inner aspect, midline, 1. 5 cm x. 5 cm x tissue deep. Size of punctured wound was. 1 x. l X mucous membrane deep. (5) Lacerated wound of the gum left side upper incisor tooth absent,. 5cmx. 5 cm. lacerated wound with bleeding present. , 2nd upper incisor left side was slightly movable. (6) Lacerated wound on the tongue left side, laterally. 5cm. medical to left side of tongue margin. Size 2 cm. X-5 cm x. 3 cm. , fresh bleeding present. (7) Multiple punctured wound on the hard and soft palate present all over, size. 1 x. Ix tissue deep. All the injuries except Nos. 5 and 6 were kept under observation and X-ray was advised. Injury No. 6 was found simple. Injury No. 5 was referred to Dental Surgeon as one of the incisor was found missing. According to Dr. R. S. Agarwal all the injuries were caused by gun shot and were fresh at the time of examination. 4. The case was investigated by S. I. Shyam Narain Singh (P. W. 7 ). He was not present at the Police Station when the First Information Report was lodged. The papers were therefore, received by him at Police Outpost, Lachmanpur. He at once proceeded to the place of incident, examined Sudhir Kumar Srivastava and Ram Tilak Singh witnesses. He then inspected the place of incident and prepared its site- plan. He found blood stains at the place of incident. The papers were therefore, received by him at Police Outpost, Lachmanpur. He at once proceeded to the place of incident, examined Sudhir Kumar Srivastava and Ram Tilak Singh witnesses. He then inspected the place of incident and prepared its site- plan. He found blood stains at the place of incident. He therefore, took blood stained and non-blood stained earth from there and prepared its Fard. He then came to the District Hospital, Sultanpur and interrogated Vinod Kumar there. On 30-11-1985 he interrogated other witnesses. He made several attempts to arrest the appellant but he was not found at his house. The Investigating Officer, therefore, obtained processes under Section 82/83, Cr. P. C. against the appellant and executed them. The Investigating Officer after completing investigation submitted charge-sheet. 5. On behalf of the prosecution, seven witnesses were examined. Durga Prasad (P. W. 1), Ram Tilak Singh (P. W. 2), Sudhir Kumar (P. W. 4) and Vinod Kumar (P. W. 6) are witnesses of the occurrence. Dr. R. S. Agarwal (P. W. 3) examined injuries and Clerk Constable Shafi Ahmad (P. W. 5) prepared chik report on the basis of the written report made by Vinod Kumar and made entry in the G. D. S. I. Shyam Narain Singh (P. W. 7) investigate the case. 6. The accused admitted that he is- an associate of Shailendra alias Pappu. He stated that on account of this association he has been falsely implicated in the case. He further stated that the witnesses did not know him and he was named in the First Information Report at the instance of one Shri Krishna Chandra Srivastava, Advocate. He did not give any evidence in defence. 7. Learned Sessions Judge, believed the prosecution case and convicted and sentenced Krishna- appellant under Section 307, I. P. C. for five years rigorous imprisonment. 8. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no reliable evidence against the appellant and he has been wrongly held guilty for the offence under Section 307, I. f. C. I do not fiod any force in this contention. 9. The prosecution examined for witnesses to prove that fire arm injury was caused by the appellant. Out of them Durga Prasad (P. W. 1) and Ram Tilak Singh (P W. 2) turned hostile. They did not state that the appellant was the assailant. 9. The prosecution examined for witnesses to prove that fire arm injury was caused by the appellant. Out of them Durga Prasad (P. W. 1) and Ram Tilak Singh (P W. 2) turned hostile. They did not state that the appellant was the assailant. Their statement, however, show that the occur rence took place in front of the office of the Executive Engineer Hydel, Sultanpur at about 4-30 p. m. as is the case of the prosecution. Sudhir Kumar (P. W. 4) and Vinod Kumar (P. W. 6) have made consistent statement that Krishna-appellants was the assailant and it was he who caused fire arm injuries to the victim. Learmd counsel for the appellant asserted the testimony of Sudhir Kumar (P. W. 4) mainly on two grounds. One of them is that he is elder brother of the victim and on account of this relationship he could state falsehood. The other ground is that his presence is not noted in the General Diary. In my opinion both these grounds have no substance. Relationship by itself is not sufficient to discard the evidence of a witness as unworthy of credit in the absence of other circumstances to detract from the evidentiary value of his testimony. If his testimony is supported by medical evidence and other circumstances and has no ill-will or hostility against the accused, the evidence of such a witness can be believed. In the present case Sudhir Kumar has no motive to make false statement against the appellant. It is undisputed that the first Information Report was scribed soon after the occurrence. It is significant to note that Sudhir Kumar (P. W. 4) is the scribe of that written report. After scribing the report he handed it over to Vinod Kumar and he lodged it at the Police Station. In view of this if he was not with Vinod Kumar at the time of the recording of F. I. R. and his name does not find place in the General Diary it cannot be said that he was not present at the time of incident. In the First Information Report, his presence has been clearly mentioned. In view of this if he was not with Vinod Kumar at the time of the recording of F. I. R. and his name does not find place in the General Diary it cannot be said that he was not present at the time of incident. In the First Information Report, his presence has been clearly mentioned. His statement is consistent with the medical evidence, it is true that he did not state before the Invstigating Officer that he had gone to the office of Vinod Kumar to inform him that he was going Hartal but this circumstance cannot be much emphasised in view of the fact that it has been mentioned in the First Information Report that at the relevant time Vinod Kumar was going alongwith his brother to see him off. Similar statement was made by Vinod Kumar and Sudhir Kumar during investigation. Thus, there is nothing suspicious in the statement of this witness making him unworthy of credit. His office is at a very short distance. He could, therefore go to the office of his brother to inform him about his programme so that family rcembeis may not wait for him after office house. The statement of Sudhir Kumar (P. W. 4) cannot, therefore, be discarded. Vmod Kumar (P. W. 4) has also stated that the appellant was the assailant. His statement has remained consistent. in his cross- examination and there is no reason to disbelieve him. It has been stated by Sudhir Kumar (P. W. 4) and Vinod Kumar (P. W. 6) that the knew the appellant before the occurrence. They have given necessary details in this connection and it is difficult to disbelieve them on this point. It may, however, be added here that the accused though stated in his examination that the witnesses did not know him before the occurrence, did not claim any identification. This conduct of the accused also goes in favour of the statement of these witnesses that they knew him prior to the occurrence. Thus, there is reliable evidence of two witnesses in support of the prosecution case. 10. The First Information Report was lodged without any. delay. The version contained in it corroborates the statement of Vinod Kumar (P. W. 6 ). The injury report is also consistent with the oral evidence. The Investigating Officer found blood stains on the spot. Thus, there is reliable evidence of two witnesses in support of the prosecution case. 10. The First Information Report was lodged without any. delay. The version contained in it corroborates the statement of Vinod Kumar (P. W. 6 ). The injury report is also consistent with the oral evidence. The Investigating Officer found blood stains on the spot. The time and place of incident has not been seriously disputed in cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. The statement of the accused that he is an associate of Shailendra alias Pappu and the unchallenged statement of Sudhir Kumar (P. W. 4) and Vinod Kumar (P. W. 6) that Shailendra alias Pappu and his family members are ill-disposed towards him also made the prosecution case believable. All these facts clearly support the oral testimony of the two eye-witnesses of the occurrence. 11. From the above discussion it is clear that the learned Sessions Judge rightly believed the case of the prosecution that fire arm injuries to Vinod Kumar were caused by Krishna-appellant as alleged by the prosecution. 12. The next point pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant is that even if the case of the prosecution is held to be proved, Krishna-appellant can be held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324, I. P. C. and he cannot be punished for the offence under Section 307,i. P. C. I do not find any force in the contention also. 13. Section 324,i. P. C. deals with causing of simple hurt by dangerous weapon or means whereas Section 307, I. P. G. applies to cases in an attempt to commit murder whether hurt is caused or not. Just because the offender used a dangerous weapon, he cannot be deemed to have acted with intent of causing death. In other words, there can be no presumption that the accuse 1 intended to cause death merely because he used a dangerous weapon to cause hurt. Thus, the question if the accused attempted to commit murder by causing hurt or intended to cause simple hurt must be determined by the nature of the act actually committed and from the surrounding circumstances. The intention is generally reflected by the consequence of what the accused has done. Thus, the question if the accused attempted to commit murder by causing hurt or intended to cause simple hurt must be determined by the nature of the act actually committed and from the surrounding circumstances. The intention is generally reflected by the consequence of what the accused has done. Where the accused fired pistol from close range aiming at upper part of the body of the victim it can be presumed that he intended to commit murder or had knowledge as contemplated by Section 307, I. P. C In order to bring the offence under Section 307, I. P. C. home to the accused, the prosecution must establish that his intention or knowledge was of the description mentioned in Section 300, I. P. C. If the act is capable of causing death or is sufficient to cause death, the fact that only minor injuries resulted from the act or that no injury resulted at all is not relevant for the purpose of decid ing whether the act of the accused is or is not an attempt to commit murder. What is material is the intention or knowledge and not the consequence of the actual act done for the purpose of carrying out the object. 14. In present case it is established by satisfactory evidence that Krishna-appellant fired country made pistol a dangerous weapon at Vinod Kumar and thereby caused multiple gunshot injuries to him. The injuries were caused on the face which is a vital part of the body. Vinod Kumar Snvastava has clearly stated that the appellant opened fire from a distance of about 4 or S paces coming from opposite direction. This statement was not challenged in cross-examination of Vinod Kumar (P. W. 6 ). It is, therefore, proved that the appellant opened fire from a close range. It has been stated by Dr. R. S. Agarwal (P. W. 3) that the injuries caused were dangerous for life. The statement of Dr. R. S. Agarwal (P. W. 3) about injury No. 5 coupled with the unchallenged statement of Sudhir Kumar (P. W. 4) and Vinod Kumar (P. W. 6) that one of the incisors of the victim was uprooted by the fire arm injury, clearly show that not only simple but grevious injuries were also caused to the victim. 15. R. S. Agarwal (P. W. 3) about injury No. 5 coupled with the unchallenged statement of Sudhir Kumar (P. W. 4) and Vinod Kumar (P. W. 6) that one of the incisors of the victim was uprooted by the fire arm injury, clearly show that not only simple but grevious injuries were also caused to the victim. 15. It is true that the supplementary report of Dental Surgeon and X-ray report were not obtained and proved but from the statements of the aforesaid three witnesses there is no room for doubt that in the assault simple as well as grevious injuries were caused to the victim. It is true that the accused did not make any declaration at the time of the assault and he had no direct motive to commit the murder of Vinod Kumar but these facts do not neces sarily lead to the conclusion that he had no intention to cause death. The other circumstance which have been mentioned above, clearly indicate that he had requisite intention. Even if it is assumed that the intention because death was not there, the aforesaid circumstances clearly show that the appellant had knowledge that his act was imminently dangerous which, in all probability, could result in an injury likely to cause death. It may also be mentioned here that Vinod Kumar was moving alongwith his brother when the appellant opened fire and, thus, the victim was no all alone and it fulfils the condition of fourth clause of Section 300, I. P. C. Thus, in any view of the matter the appellant appears to be guilty for the offence of attempt to murder punishable under Section 397, I. P. C. and it cannot be inferred that he had intention to cause simple injuries to the victim and is, thus, guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324,i. P. C. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant, in support of his argument that only an offence under Section 324, I. P. C. has been proved, placed relience upon two cases. One of them is Santoo v. State, 1977 Allahabad Criminal Cases 38 (H. C. ). In this case simple injuries to the victim were caused by a pharsa. They were on right side of skull and fore-head and on two shoulders. On account of these injuries it was held that offence under Section 324, I. P. C. alone was made out. In this case simple injuries to the victim were caused by a pharsa. They were on right side of skull and fore-head and on two shoulders. On account of these injuries it was held that offence under Section 324, I. P. C. alone was made out. No reason except that the injuries were simple has heen assigned in this case why the case could not 1 all under Section 307, I. P. C. This case is undisputedly distinguishable on facts from the present case. The other case referred to is Farooq v. State of U. P. , 1980 Allahabad Criminal Cases 351 (H. C. ). In this case one lacerated circular wound cm. x cm. x cm deep was found on the back of head and the injury was declared simple and caused by country made pistol. It was held in this case that the accused as well as the victim were partners in the business and the assailant had no intention to cause death. In these circumstances it was held that a case under Section 324,i. P. C was made out and it was an offence under Section 307, I. P. C. In the present case as has been observed above, there are multiple fire arm injuries simple as well as grevious in nature. The manner in which the accused came from front side and fired on vital part of the victim from a close range causing thereby injuries to him and the facts which have been disclosed by the prosecution to show that the accused had motive to commit the crime clearly indicate that in the present case intention to cause death can be inferred from the circumstances of the case. Thus, both the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant do not help him much in show ing that the present case falls within the purview of Section 324, I. P. C. and not Section 307,i. P. C. 17. In Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar, 1965 (1) Criminal Law Journal 766 (Suprema Court) the accused caussd injury to the victim in a vital region with a knife. No vital organ of the victim had been cut. In Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar, 1965 (1) Criminal Law Journal 766 (Suprema Court) the accused caussd injury to the victim in a vital region with a knife. No vital organ of the victim had been cut. It was held that the fact that no vital organ of the victim had been cut, would not by itself be sufficient to take the act of accused out of the purview of Section 307,i. P. C. It has been further held in this case that in order to bring the offence under Section 307, I. P. C. bring home to accused the prosecution must establish that the accused had the intention mentioned in Section 300,i. P. C. and it is to be deduced from surrounding circumstances and the motive. 18. In Liyaqut Mian and others v. State of Bihar, 1973 Criminal Law Journal 544 (Supreme Court) the accused fired at the victim from such a close quarter that had the victim died of the injury it would have been murder. On the basis of these facts it was held that the accused committed offence under Section 307, I. P. C. as the knowledge of possible death could be legitimately imputed to him. 19. In Parcho Kewalram and others v. Emreror, AIR 1944 Sind 83 (Full Bench) the accused who was not an expert shot when pursued as a theif by the victim fired at the victim and wounded him in the right leg. It was held that when the accused fired his revolver under the circumstances his act if death had followed, would clearly have failed under the fourth part of Section 300, Penal Code, as it was an act so imminently dangerous that would in all its pro bability cause death or such bodily injury as likely to cause death. The case, there fore, falls within the purview of Section 307, I. P. C. and not Section 324,i. P. C. 20. The case, there fore, falls within the purview of Section 307, I. P. C. and not Section 324,i. P. C. 20. In Pohap Singh and another v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, 1956 ALJ 109, it has been held that intention is the main ingredient of Section 307, I. P. C. If the intention was to commit murder of the injured person and it was with that intention that the injured was shot at, there can be no doubt that the offence would fall under Section 307, I. P. C. It has been further held in this case that it is immaterial that the injuries which were caused to the injured were not of such a nature as to have caused her death or that they were merely simple hurts. In this reported case the injured was shot at twice and the second shot was fired at the victim with a declaration that the injured had not died and should be fired at again. It was held that there was intention to kill and the offence committed was under Section 307,i. P. C. 21. In Rameshwar v. Emperor, AIR 1935 Oudh 281, it has been held that intention or knowledge which is necessary to constitute murder may exist combined with an act which falls short of the complete commission of the offence. To justify a conviction under Section 307, I. P. C. it is not essential that actual injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted although nature of the injuries caused may often give considerable assistance to a Court in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused. 22. The observations made in all these cases show that intention or knowledge should be inferred from all necessary circumstances and not on the basis of the injury alone. When the facts of the case are considered in view of the principle of law laid down in these cases, it can be safely held that the appellant committed an offence punishable under Section 307,i. P. C. and not under Section 324. I. P. C. 23. The last point pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the sentence passed is severe. I do not find any substance in this contention also. The appellant opened fire without any provocation. I was a premeditated and daring act. It was committed in front of a public office. I. P. C. 23. The last point pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the sentence passed is severe. I do not find any substance in this contention also. The appellant opened fire without any provocation. I was a premeditated and daring act. It was committed in front of a public office. The question of sentence depends upon the facts of the particular case. The learned Sessions Judge has given satisfactory reasons in awarding the sentence of Five Years R. I. In my opinion Five Years R. I. is not too severe sentence to be inter fered within appeal. 24. The appeal has, therefore, no force. It is accordingly dismissed. The conviction and sentence of Krishna-appellant for the offence under Section 307, I. P. C. are maintained. He is in Jail. He shall serve out the sentence. Appeal dismissed. .