USHA KANT VARMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the judgment of Sri V. M. Kher, IV Additional Sessions Judge, Agra dated 14-5-79 convicting the appellant Ram Lakhan under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo seven years Rigorous Imprisonment. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case as contained in the first Information Report Ex. Ka. l lodged by Diwan Singh P. W. 2 cousin of the injured Kunwar Pal P. W. 4 at 9. 05 p. m. is that on 12-1-1978 Kunwar Pal went to cut grass in the field with the appellant Ram Lakhan who was ill-disposed towards them from a long time. Ram Lakhan at about 5 p. m. with a view to murder Kunwar Pal inflicted several injures all over his body. When Kunwar Pal raised alarm, he reached the scene of occurrence with Gokul P. W. 5, Nathu Ram P. W. 3 and many other persons of the village. Ram Lakhan on seeing them, fled away. ( 3 ) THIS case was registered against the appellant under Section 307/324 of the Indian Penal Code by die C. D. entry Ex. Ka. 3. Kunwar Pal was sent for medical-examinations. The report of Dr. R. C. S. Chauhan P. W. 6 shows that Kunwar Pal who was examined at 10. 30 p. m. on 12-1-1978 had the following eighteen injures 1. Incised wound on front of neck in middle part. 2. Incised wound on fore arm on posterior medial aspect in upper 1/3 part. 3. Incised wound on fore are in lower l/3rd part on antere medial aspect. 4. Incised wound on hand index finger at base on dorsal aspect. 5. Abrasion on fore arm on anterie medial aspect in middle 1/3 part. 6. Incised wound on Fore arm on anterio medial aspect in Iwer 1/3 part. 7. Abrasion on left fore arm posterie aspect in lower 1/3 part. 8. Incised woundskin deep wall of abdomen upper part. 9. Incised wound skin deep on Rt. lat. wall of abdomen 3 cm. below the injury me 0. 8. 10. Incised wound skin deep on Rt. anterio Lat. wall of abdomen below and medial to injury 11. Incised wound skin deep on Rt. side of abdomen on lower part. 12. Incised wound deep on Rt. thigh posterior aspect on upper 1/3 part. 13. Incised wound skin deep on Rt. below the injury me 0. 8. 10. Incised wound skin deep on Rt. anterio Lat. wall of abdomen below and medial to injury 11. Incised wound skin deep on Rt. side of abdomen on lower part. 12. Incised wound deep on Rt. thigh posterior aspect on upper 1/3 part. 13. Incised wound skin deep on Rt. thigh lower 1/3 part. 14. Incised wound on leg on posterior lat. aspect in upper 1/3 part. 15. Incised wound skin deep on front of Rt. leg lower 1/3 part. 16. Incised wound on leg posterior aspect lat. lower 1/3 part. 17. Incised wound only leg on anterio lat aspect in lower 1/3 part. 18. Incised wound on front of It. knee. ( 4 ) THE duration of the injures which were all simple excepting injury No. 1, had been noted to be fresh. The injury No. 1 caused by Sharp edged weapon was directed to be kept under observation. The injury No. 1 was bleeding but the general condition of the injured was fair. He referred mm to the District Hospital, Agra for the treatment of the injury No. 1. ( 5 ) THE investigation of the ease was conducted by S. I. Prem Singh P. W. 7. He stated to have collected the plain and blood stained earth from the scene of the occurrence and prepared the recovery memo Ex. Ka. 4. He proved the site-plan Ex. Ka-C which he pointed to have prepared with the help of the witnesses. The appellant, he stated, had surrendered in the court whereafter be submitted the chargesheet Ex. Ka. 2 against him. ( 6 ) THE prosecution had examined Diwan Singh P. W. 2, Nathu P. W. 3, Gokul P. W. 5 and the injured Kunwar Pal P. W. 4 as witnesses of the occurrence. Diwan Singh P. W. 2 in his cross-examination gave out that the appellant believed that his cousin brother Naina had been kidnapped and murdered by the father of the injured Kunwar Pal and with a view to take revenge he had attempted. to murder Kunwar Pal. He stated to be at distance of 40 to 50 yards at the time of occurrence and reached there on hearing his cries. Ram Lakhan assulted him in the field to the west of his own field. On receiving the injuries Kanwar Pal fell down. It was not dark at that time. to murder Kunwar Pal. He stated to be at distance of 40 to 50 yards at the time of occurrence and reached there on hearing his cries. Ram Lakhan assulted him in the field to the west of his own field. On receiving the injuries Kanwar Pal fell down. It was not dark at that time. Ram Lakhan could not be caught as he fled away. ( 7 ) NATHU Ram P. W. 3 deposed that when he reached the place of occurrence, he saw Kunwar Pal lying injured in the field of Sukhdeo. He did not notice the assailant. Kunwar Pal and Diwan Singh had told him at the spot that Ram Lakhan had assaulted him. This witness had been declared hostile and was confronted with him alleged statement under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code that he had been Ram Lakhan inflicting knife blows on Kunwar Pal, but he denied to have made it. In the cross-examination at the instance of the learned Counsel for the appellant, he deposed that Gokul Singh, Diwan Singh and he were not in a position to catch the accused, even though they would have tries to apprehend him. He admited that Kunwar Pal had 15 to 16 injuries on his person and was carried on a cot first to the village. ( 8 ) GOKUL P. W. 5 affirmed on oath that he had seen Ram Lakhan inflicting knife injuries on Kunwar Pal and when he and other witnesses Nathu and Diwan Singh objected as to why he was assaulting him, Ram Lakhan fled away. He explained that he did not give him a chase as Kunwar Pal on account of the injuries had been lying unconscious. In his cross-examination he stated that he was not in a position to see the occurrence form the place where he was outting the grass and that Nathu and Diwan Singh had reached the place of the incident one or two minutes before him. He stated to have had first view of the occurrence from a distance of 150 yards. He denied that the occurrence had taken place after it had grown dark. ( 9 ) KUNWAR Pal injured P. W. 4 deposed that Ram Lakhan started inflicting the knife injuries after telling him that be would murder him as his father and his cousin brother had killed Naina, his cousin brother. He denied that the occurrence had taken place after it had grown dark. ( 9 ) KUNWAR Pal injured P. W. 4 deposed that Ram Lakhan started inflicting the knife injuries after telling him that be would murder him as his father and his cousin brother had killed Naina, his cousin brother. The witnesses Gokul, Nathu and Diwan had come running to the place of incident on his cries and the appellant as a result of it, fled away. He become unconscious soon after. In the cross-examination he stated that he had seen the witnesses when they were at a distance of fifty steps. The appellant continued to assault him till so long as he was conscious. The appellant inflicted knife injures on his stomach. He had stabbed him and had inflicted the injures with force. He could not tell as to when he had reached the Police Station and the Hospital. The Sub-Inspector, according to him, had taken down the report at the Police Station. He could not tell as to where Ram Lakhan had kept his Kurpi when he assaulted him. He expressed ignorance about the fact whether Ram Lakhan and Diwan before ill-will towards each other or not. No, however, denied that the incident had taken place during night and he could not see his assailants. ( 10 ) THE learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Agra in his judgment has observed that the injured Kunwar Pal could not have excluded his actual assailant more so when the appellant Ram Lakhan was pointed to have assaulted him. In his opinion the statement of Kunwar Pal alone was enough for holding Ram Lakhan to be the assailant. The police, according to him, could not be interested in the false implication of Ram Lakhan. He found Kunwar Pal to be about 15 or 16 years of age on the date on which his statement was recorded and not being so soft as could be made to give a tutored statement. He further, has elaborately discussed as to how he felt satisfied that the incident had not taken place after sun set The IV Additional Sessions Judge further has. applied his mind on the question as to how he thought that the case was one under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and not under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. applied his mind on the question as to how he thought that the case was one under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and not under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 11 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant urged before me that the appellant could not have committed the crime as he had no motive for it. The prosecution witnesses, he pointed, were unworthy of credit as there were many contradictions in between their statements and they were not in a position to see the assailant of Kunwar Pal. So far as Kunwar Pal himself is concerned, his contention was that on account of his immaturety he had been prevailed upon by Diwan Singh to falsely implicate him. So far as the charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, he argued that it could not be said to have been made out as all the injures of Kunwar Pal ultimately turned out to be simple, and his condition even at the time of his examination at 10. 30 p. m. by Dr. R. C. S. Chauhan P. W. 6 had not been found to be critical but fair. Ram Lakhan according to him at worst, could beheld guilty under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and was entitled to be released on probation of good conduct. ( 12 ) I have given in due consideration to the contentions of the counsel for the appellant. In the First Information Report it is not alleged that Ram Lakhan had attempted to murder Kunwar Pal because he had a feeling that his father and his cousin had done to death his own cousin Naina. The F. I. R. only shows that there was old enmity between the family members of the informant and those of the appellant. Naina, the cousin of the appellant no doubt is untraceable form more than 10 to 12 years form before the incident and the family members of Kunwar Pal were not shown to have been prosecuted in that conilection. It would how prose be presumed that the appellant could have no motive at all for the disappearance of Naina has not been challenged. The learned IV Additional Sessions Judge while. It would how prose be presumed that the appellant could have no motive at all for the disappearance of Naina has not been challenged. The learned IV Additional Sessions Judge while. considering the question of motive has dealt with the principle laid down in H. P. Administration v. Om Prakash, that the springs of human action and conduct are unfathomable because what motivates them is difficult to postulate for experience has shown that even lesser motivated persons have committed more dastardly crimes. He had decided the case on correct assumption of lay that where there is positive. Clear, cogent and reliable evidence, the question of motive bas no importance. The appellant as later discussion would shown, cannot derive benefit from the fact that substantial evidence with regard to the motive had not been led by the prosecution. ( 13 ) THE medical-examination of Kunwar Pal had been done at 10. 30 p. m. after the First Information Report had been lodged at 9. 05 p. m. The learned IV Additional Sessions Judge has pointed that it could reasonably take about three hours for the informant Diwan Singh P. W. 2 to take the injured Kunwar Pal first to his village and from there to bring him to the police station. Kunwar Pal as is the prosecution evidence, must have become unconscious on receiving eighteen incised injures. A cot would have been needed for carrying him. The distance of the place of the incident from the Police Station Pinahat where the F. I. R. was lodged, has been shown to be three kilometres form the place of the occurrence. The distance of the place of the incident form the village wherein Kunwar Pal resided, had been pointed to be one mile by Diwan Singh P. W. 2. The appellant did not show that the above distances were incorrect. The IV Additional Sessions Judge was justified in drawing the conclusion that if the incident would not have taken place before the sun set, Kunwar Pal could not reach the police station at 9. 05 p. m. and his medical examination could not have been done at 10. 30 p. m. It is not the case of the appellant that Kunwar Pal did not known him. The appellant and Kunwar Pal had gone to court grass along with each other. 05 p. m. and his medical examination could not have been done at 10. 30 p. m. It is not the case of the appellant that Kunwar Pal did not known him. The appellant and Kunwar Pal had gone to court grass along with each other. The appellant before assaulting Kunwar Pal was also stated to have told him that he was taking revenge against his father. Kunwar Pal thus could not have made mistake about the identity of the person who had assaulted him. It follows from the decision in Joe v. State of Kerala, that conviction for murder was sustainable on the honest and trustworthy, testimony of even a single witness. The learned IV Additional Sessions Judge had satisfied, himself that Kunwar Pal was a lad of 15 or 16 years with normal understanding and intellect and had given a truthful account. The finding of the learned IV Additional sessions Judge is not liable to be disturbed as I also do not see any such infirmity in the statement of Kunwar Pal as could make him unworthy of credit. ( 14 ) THE witness Nathu had been declared hostile when he denied to have seen the appellant assaulting Kunwar Pal. It, however, follows from his statement that he had reached the scene of occurrence soon after. It would not be justified to hold that if Nathu could not see Ram Lakhan assaulting Kunwar Pal, Diwan Singh P. W. 2 and Gokul P. W. 5 could have also not seen the assault in question. There is ample explanation in the testimony of Gokul as to why Ram Lakhan could not be apprehended. His statement that he preferred to attend on Kunwar Pal as his condition was bad, appears to be convincing. The statements of the prosecution witnesses - are consistant on the point that the incident took place at 5. 00 p. m. and as such it could not be doubted that atleast Kunwar Pal was in a position to see his assailant who had inflicted as many as 18 injuries on mm. It now remains only to be seen whether the conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is justified or not. The appellant had inflicted one injury on the front of the neck measuring 4 cm. x 5. cm. x. 5 cm. and four injuries on the abdomen measuring 4. 5 cm. x 1 cm. It now remains only to be seen whether the conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is justified or not. The appellant had inflicted one injury on the front of the neck measuring 4 cm. x 5. cm. x. 5 cm. and four injuries on the abdomen measuring 4. 5 cm. x 1 cm. x skin deep, 3 cm. x 1. 2 cm x skin deep, 2 cm. x. 9 cm. x skin deep and 3 cm. x. 5 cm. x skin deep besides other injures on his arms and legs. Dr. R. G. S. Chauhan P. W. 6 had opened that the injury on the neck could be dangerous to the life of Kunwar Pal and he had recommended him to the District Hospital for treatment The length of the incised wounds dealt with above on the vital parts could, by no means, be said to be insignificant. The shock as a result of the aforesaid 18 incised wounds could be viewed as dangerous more so as five of them were on vital parts. They also prima facie indicate that there was the intention to murder Kunwar Pal who as a result of the injuries had become unconsicious Dr. R. C. S. Chauhan had not been cross-examined on the point as to how he thought the injury on the neck of Kunwar Pal to be dangerous to his life. The learned IV Additional Sessions Judge had justifiably held Ram Lakhan to be guilty under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code. So far as the sentence of seven years Rigorous Imprisonment awarded to him is concerned, I reduce it to four years, six months considering the fact that ultimately none of the injuries of Kunwar Pal turned out to be grievious and sufficiently long time has elapsed since the conviction of Ram Lakhan. The case of Han Kishan and state of Haryana v. Veer Singh and ors. cited by the counsel for the appellant has no application to the facts of this case. ( 15 ) THE conviction of the appellant Ram Lakhan under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is maintained. The sentence of 7 (seven) years Rigorous Imprisonment awarded to him by the IV Additional Sessions Judge is modified. He on the above count shall serve the Sentence of merely four (4) years and six (6) months. He is on bail. The sentence of 7 (seven) years Rigorous Imprisonment awarded to him by the IV Additional Sessions Judge is modified. He on the above count shall serve the Sentence of merely four (4) years and six (6) months. He is on bail. His bail bonds are being cancelled. He shall be taken into custody to serve the sentence without any delay. .