JUDGMENT : J. Das, J. - This criminal revision arises out the appellate judgment dated 3.8.1985 upholding the conviction and sentence dated 28.9.1983 passed by Sri S.C. Misra, Assistant Sessions Judge, Anandapur, in convicting the Petitioner u/s 307, IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for four years. 2. It Is not necessary to state the facts in detail, as two accused persons have been acquitted and a part of the incident has been held not to have been proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts. The relevant facts of the case are that on 10.12.1982 at 7.00 A.M. - at village Narsinghpur Jogi Sahu (P.W. 1) was sitting by the side of fire in front of the house of Shiba Sahu (P.W. 3). The Petitioner (accused) Raghunath Sahu came there carrying a Gupti which was kept in a wooden cover. Two other persons, who also figured as accused accompanied Raghunath Sahu. The Petitioner Raghunath Sahu dealt a blow by the Gupti with a wooden cover on the head of Naran Deo (P.W. 2) in front of the house of Naran Deo (P.W. 2) and the other two persons accompanying Raghunath Sahu also assaulted Kalakar Deo Jogi Sahu (P.W. 1) came there and protested On seeing Jogi Sahu (P.W. 1), accused Raghunath told him (P.W. 1) to go away from the spot and while he was going back Raghunath stabbed on his back with the Gupti. The Gupti penetrated inside the body of Jogi Sahu (P.W. 1) and damaged vital organs and Jogi Sahu fell down due to severe bleeding. After that Jogi Sahu was removed to the P.S. and gave report orally which was reduced in to writing by the O.I.C. (P.W. 9), who treated the same as the F.I.R. On police requisition Jogi Sahu was medically examined by Dr. Kumarbar Sahu (P.W. 8). who found that the said Jogi Sahu sustained a grievous injury and that the injury was on vital part of the body. The I.O. in course of the investigation seized incriminating articles and after investigation was closed charge-sheet was submitted and thus the Petitioner stood trial and stands convicted and sentenced as above. 3. The defence plea is one of denial. 4. The I.O. in course of the investigation seized incriminating articles and after investigation was closed charge-sheet was submitted and thus the Petitioner stood trial and stands convicted and sentenced as above. 3. The defence plea is one of denial. 4. The trial Court and the appellate Court after discussing the materials on record in detail gave clear finding that the accused-Petitioner Raghunath Sahu stabbed Jogi Sahu (P.W. 1) with a Gupti causing grievous hurt and the injury was dangerous and if there would not have peen timely treatment the said injury might have been the cause of death of Jogi Sahu. 5. The learned advocate for the Petitioner argued that the witnesses for the prosecution are interested witnesses and their evidence is not free from discrepancies and some witnesses mentioned in the F.I.R. have not been examined and hence the accused person should be acquitted. All the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the Petitioner are matters concerning the factual aspects of the case. The trial Court and the appellate Court have discussed all these aspects before arriving at their respective findings and both the Courts have considered all the material evidence in the case. When the findings of both the appellate Court and the trial Court are concurrent on these matters, the revisional Court should not interfere with the findings by reappraisal of the evidence. In criminal case, the evidence as a whole is to be looked into and if the substance on the evidence proves the prosecution case beyond all reasonable doubts, then conviction can be based upon such evidence by ignoring some discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter. It is also not necessary that the prosecution is obliged to examine each and every witness either mentioned in the F.I.R. or examined during the investigation. Only such number of witnesses who successfully prove the prosecution case are to be examined and other witnesses may be given up. It is only the quality of the evidence and not the quantity that matter. In this case it is seen that Jogi Sahu (P.W. 1) after being stabbed was removed to the Ramchandrapur P.S., where he gave an oral report stating clearly that he was stabbed on his back. The report was lodged at 10 A.M. on 10.12.82. It is only the quality of the evidence and not the quantity that matter. In this case it is seen that Jogi Sahu (P.W. 1) after being stabbed was removed to the Ramchandrapur P.S., where he gave an oral report stating clearly that he was stabbed on his back. The report was lodged at 10 A.M. on 10.12.82. It appears that soon after the report was lodged the O.I.C. issued the requisition for examination of Jogi Sahu and the injury to Jogi Sahu was examined by Dr. Kumarbar Sahu (P.W. 8) without loss of time and Jogi Sahu was also admitted as an indoor patient and he remained under treatment till 27.12.82, when he was discharged. The injury report has been proved as Ext. 6 and the Bed-head ticket has been proved as Ext. 7. During the course of treatment the I.O.C. made a querry vide Ext. 8/1 regarding the nature of the injury and vide Ext. 8 the doctor gave opinion that the type of injury sustained by Jogi Sahu may cause death and it is dangerous to life. In his statement Jogi Sahu (P.W. 1) has clearly stated regarding the injury sustained by him and he has also been corroborated by P.Ws. 2 and 4 and also P.Ws. 3 and 5. The lower Courts have held that P.Ws. 3 and 5 are independent witnesses. Thus, the prosecution case has been aptly corroborated and the evidence is quite unimpeachable and so I am in complete agreement with the findings the trial Court and the appellate Court. The learned advocate for the Petitioner argued that even if it be held that the Petitioner Raghunath Sahoo stabbed Jogi Sahu (P.W. 1), then also it cannot be said that offence u/s 307, IPC has been made out and the offence if at all will be one u/s 324, IPC. 6. Dr. Kumarbar Sahu (P.W. 8) has stated that Jogi Sahu sustained the following injuries: One penetrating wound 3 A.M. in length X 2 c.m. in breadth X 6 c.m. in depth on the right side back in the intercostal space between 8th and 9th ribs. 9 A.M. to the right of the midline, the edges were clean cut and had sharp angle at the two extremities. The wound was directed down ward forward and laterlly. The plura was open and lung was also open. There was leakage of air in wound. 9 A.M. to the right of the midline, the edges were clean cut and had sharp angle at the two extremities. The wound was directed down ward forward and laterlly. The plura was open and lung was also open. There was leakage of air in wound. It appears from the above injuries that the depth is 6 A.M. and on account of the stab injury the pleura was open and lung was also open and there was leakage of air in wound. The doctor has further opined that the injury is grievous in nature. The doctor (P.W. 8) has also stated tithe injury on Jogi Sahu was on very vital part of the body and it could have caused death to Jogi Sahu had proper and immediate treatment been not given to him. From the opinion of the doctor, it is clear that the injury is highly fatal and in this case Jogi Sahu is quite fortunate that there was no loss of time in his treatment and the treatment also appears to be proper and hence he could be saved otherwise injury would have certainly caused the death of Jogi Sahu. Section 307, IPC is as follows: Attempt to murder-Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such, punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. From the above section it is clear that the intention or knowledge which is necessary to constitute murder may exist, combined with an act which falls short of the complete commission of that offence. It further transpires from the section that the act, although it does not cause death, is carried to such a length as, the time of carrying it to that length, the offender considers sufficient to cause death. For the purpose of Section 307, an attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient by law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. For the purpose of Section 307, an attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient by law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. For purposes of criminal liability, it is sufficient, if the attempt had gone so far, that the crime would have been completed, but for the extraneous intervention which frustrated its consummation. In the light of the above principles of law it is a clear case of attempt to murder. Anybody penetrating with a Gupti to a depth of 6 A.M. on a vital part of the body must be considered that such an injury may be sufficient to cause death and this clearly shows that the intention or knowledge of the assailant to cause death was present at the time of commission of the offence. In this case the doctor (P.W. 8) has also given a wiry clear opinion that the injury was on very vital part of the body and it could have caused the death of Jogi Sahu had proper and immediate treatment been not given to him. Thus, it goes to show that the crime of murder would have been completed, but the consummation of the same was frustrated due to extraneous intervention i.e. immediate and proper treatment. In these circumstances, there is no doubt about the fact that it is a clear case of attempt to murder within the meaning of Section 307. 7. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that a liberal view should be taken in the matter of sentence in this case and the period undergone by the Petitioner in the jail custody should be treated as the sentence. I do not agree with this contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. It is seen from the nature of the injury that Jogi. Sahu (P.W. 1) was saved by chance and as per the opinion of the doctor (P.W. 8) the nature of the injury was such that the death of Jogi Sahu was certain, if there had not been proper and immediate treatment. It is seen from the nature of the injury that Jogi. Sahu (P.W. 1) was saved by chance and as per the opinion of the doctor (P.W. 8) the nature of the injury was such that the death of Jogi Sahu was certain, if there had not been proper and immediate treatment. Added to this, it is clear from the evidence that the accused Petitioner Raghunath Sahoo caused the injury to Jogi Sahu (P.W. 1) only because of the fact that he was a witness in a case against him (accused-Petitioner) and he (P.W. 1) was likely to be a witness in this case. Thus, the motive for causing the fatal injury is sinister and deplorable, When the circumstances are such, I am of the view that it is not desirable to show any leniency in the matter of sentence. Hence, the sentence awarded by the lower Courts is quite justified in this case and I do not find any good ground to interfere with the same. 8. In the result, there is no merit in this revision and the same is dismissed and the conviction and sentence passed against the Petitioner by the trial Court are upheld. Final Result : Dismissed