Judgment : 1. The revision petitioner Pondhan aliasDoraisamy is the accused in S.C.No.157 of 1985 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Vridhachalam. 2. The gravamen of the accusation against him was that on 17.4.1985 at about 10.30 P.M., when P.W.I, the village munsif of Asakalathur was lying in a cot in front of his house, the revision petitioner-accused came there, inflicted a stab on his right flank with a knife and on receipt of such a stab, P.W.1 stood and at that time, the accused against inflicted another stab on his left flank and ran away from there. The incident of actual stabbing was staged to have been witnessed, apart from P.W.1, the victim of assault, his wife P.W.2 and P.W.3, the woman residing in the opposite house of P.W.1. Though the occurrence had happened during night hours, there was burning of electric light in the house of P.W.1 as well as in the street lamp post situate very near to the house of P.W.1. 3. The occurrence is stated to have happened as a result of the previous enmity the revision petitioner-accused had with P. W. 1. The enmity part is spoken to by P.W.1. What he would state is that 2 years prior to the occurrence, the revision petitioner-accused inflicted cut injuries on his sisters son by name Ponnusamy and as a consequence thereof P.W.1, in his capacity as village munsif, reprimanded his conduct and severely warned him. 4. Further, the revision petitioner-accused was stated to have dismantled certain huts in the colony of the village sometime prior to the occurrence in a drunken mood and again P.W.1, in his capacity as a village munsif, warned him of severe consequences for his dastardly action, though he did not prefer any complaint to the police. 5. Likewise some two months prior to the occurrence his brother by name Rajendran devoured the neivedhyam food prepared for the deity at Periyayi Amman temple, which was solely intended to be distributed to the childless parents and when P.W.1 condemned the act of his brother Rajendran, he took it as an affront and insult to himself and vowed to wreak vengeance on P.W.1. 6. There is also the evidence of the doctor P.W.6, who issued Ex.P-4 wound certificate for the injuries he sustained on the date of occurrence. 6. There is also the evidence of the doctor P.W.6, who issued Ex.P-4 wound certificate for the injuries he sustained on the date of occurrence. The Medical testimony revealed that the injuries sustained by P.W.1 on the date of occurrence could have been caused in the manner alleged by P.W.1. 7. It is on these materials, learned trial Judge found him guilty of the offence under Sec.307, I.P.C., convicted him thereunder and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 4 years. 8. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, he, preferred C.A.No.43 of 1986 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, South Arcot District at Cuddalore. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, on consideration of the materials available on record and after hearing the arguments of learned respective Counsel, dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence, giving rise to the present revision. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would press for consideration the following points: (a) The non-seizure of the knife, said to have been wielded at by the revision petitioner-accused in inflicting the stab on the person of P.W.1, on the date of occurrence, is fatal to the case of the prosecution. (b) The non-examination of the doctor attached to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Cuddalore, who had given further treatment to P.W.1 is also a fatal blow to the case of the prosecution. (c) The non-sending of the clothes worn by the victim of assault P.W.1, bed sheet and the coir woven in the cot viz., M.Os.l to 3 to the Chemical Examiner is also a serious lacuna, having a serious impact on the case of the prosecution. (d) The appreciation of the materials available on record, both by the trial as well as the appellate court, is perverse, calling for interference. (e) Assuming for arguments sake that there is no perverse appreciation of materials available on record, even then, such materials cannot be stated to have constituted necessary ingredients of the offence falling under Sec.307, I.P.C., and if at all such materials could disclose only an offence falling under Sec.324, I.P.C., in which case ends of justice would call for substantial reduction of the sentence imposed upon the revision petitioner-accused by the trial court and laterly confirmed by the appellate Court. (f) In any event, the sentence of 4 years rigorous imprisonment imposed on the revision petitioner-accused for the offence under Sec.307, I.P.C. is unduly severe and harsh, calling for substantial reduction, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. The points urged by learned counsel for the revision petitioner-accused under the headings (a) to (c) revolving on the questions of non-seizure of the weapon of offence stated to have been wielded by the revision petitioner-accused in inflicting the stab on the person of P.W.1 at or about the time of the occurrence; the non-examination of the doctor attached to the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Cuddalore, who was stated to have given further treatment to P.W.1 subsequent to the treatment given to him by P.W.6, the doctor attached to the Government Hospital at Kallakurichi and the non-sending of the clothes worn by the victim of assault, viz., P.W.1 and other articles to the Chemical Examiner for the purpose of analysis, are of on consequence at all, when especially there is clinching evidence in the shape of the testimony of the eye witnesses P. Ws.2 and 3, apart from the victim of assault P.W.1 as respects the entirety of the occurrence, implicating the accused-revision petitioner in the sense of himself wielding the knife at the relevant point of time and inflicting two stabs on his person, one on the left flank and another on the right flank, thereby causing injuries of serious nature, endangering his life and in the process of such causation of injuries, the cloth he was wearing getting drenched with blood. The doctor who gave initial treatment to the accused and issued the wound certificate Ex.P.4 had been examined and his evidence would clinchingly point out that the injuries found on the person of P.W.1 could have been caused in the manner alleged by the prosecution. In such a situation, the non-examination of the doctor attached to the Cuddalore Government Head Quarters Hospital, who was stated to have given further treatment, is of no consequence. 11. Sifting or scanning of the materials-available on record by both the courts below can by no stretch of imagination be stated to be suffering from the vice or infirmity of misormal-appreciation of the evidence available on record. 11. Sifting or scanning of the materials-available on record by both the courts below can by no stretch of imagination be stated to be suffering from the vice or infirmity of misormal-appreciation of the evidence available on record. Apart from the victim of assault P.W.1, there is the clinching testimony of his wife P.W.2, besides P.W.3 residing in the opposite house of P.W.1, emerging from independent quarters. The fact that P.W.2 is the wife of P.W.1 by itself is not a circumstance for eschewing her testimony, in the absence of her evidence suffering from any infirmity of material contradictions or inherent improbabilities. Nothing is shown on this aspect of the matter respecting the evidence of P.W.2. 12. This apart, the evidence of P.W.3 is also not suffering from and such infirmity, further, nothing is shown or available on record to point out that she is having any sort of animosity or embittered relationship with the revision petitioner-accused for falsely implicating him in the occurrence. 13. The occurrence having happened during night hours, visibility factor is of paramount importance. On this aspect of the matter, the evidence of P.W. 1 and other witnesses point out the existence of electrical illuminations in the scene, in the sense of electric lamps burning not only in the house of P.W.1, but also in the street lamp posts, situate adjacent 13 his house. 14. All these aspects of the matter had been duly taken into account in the broad spectrum of the analysis of the evidence available on record both by trial and appellate Courts and in such a situation to say that there is perverse appreciation of evidence, calling or interference, cannot at all be countenanced. 15. The other argument that the materials available on record could by no stretch of imagination be construed to constitute the ingredients of the offence falling under Sec.307, I.P.C., cannot be accepted to get the seal of approval in the facts and circumstances. For attracting liability under Sec.307, I.P.C. what is required to be proved is intention or knowledge on the part of the doer of the act in perpetrating the act. For attracting liability under Sec.307, I.P.C. what is required to be proved is intention or knowledge on the part of the doer of the act in perpetrating the act. The first limb of the Section prescribes that 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. The second limb of the Section prescribes that is’ 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. 16. So, for the liability to be attracted either under the first limb or under the second limb, what is requisite is the intention or knowledge on the part of the doer of the act in the perpetration of the act. In the case on hand, of course there is no direct evidence of revealing intention or knowledge entertained by the revision-petitioner-accused at the time of the occurrence in the sense of himself giving vent to his mind by proclamation of words, revealing his intention or knowledge in the doing away with the victim of assault. But, nonetheless the intention or knowledge on the part of the revision petitioner-accused can easily be inferred from the circumstances of the case. 17. As disclosed by the evidence of P.W.1, the accused entertained animosity towards P.W.1 and vowed to wreak vengeance for his very often interfering and reprimanding or warning him for doing certain activities in the village. The act had been perpetrated by him by inflicting two stabs by means of a knife on the vulnerable portions of human anatomy, viz., left and right flanks of P.W.1. It is common knowledge that the vulnerable internal organs are perched inside the flanks and the stabs given on such portions of the anatomy are likely to endanger human life. The act had been perpetrated by him by inflicting two stabs by means of a knife on the vulnerable portions of human anatomy, viz., left and right flanks of P.W.1. It is common knowledge that the vulnerable internal organs are perched inside the flanks and the stabs given on such portions of the anatomy are likely to endanger human life. As such, from the act of the accused in giving stabs by means of a knife at vulnerable portions of human anatomy of P.W.1, it is inferable that he entertained the intention of doing away with the life of P.W.1, and in such process, he also caused hurt on the person of P.W. 1, as disclosed by the medical testimony available on record. So, the contention of learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the offence committed by the revision petitioner-accused can by no stretch of imagination be stated to fall under Sec.307, I.P.C., but would definitely fall under Sec.324, I.P.C., on the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot at all be countenanced. 18. The last argument that survives for consideration is the question of sentence for the offence under Sec.307, I.P.C. According to learned counsel for the revision petitioner the sentence of 4 years of the offence under Sec.307, I.P.C., is rather harsh or severe, calling for reduction of sentence. On the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not prepared to share such opinion. The revision petitioner-accused is definitely entitled to a remission of sentence for a period of one year under the benevolent provisions of G.O.Ms.No.180, Home (Prisons IV) Department, dated 28.1.1989 and G.O.Ms.No.781, Home (PR.C) Department, dated 11.4.1990. As such he has to undergo sentence of only three years rigorous imprisonment. In this view of the matter, I do not think that the interest of justice requires any further reduction in the sentence imposed on him. 19. As such, the revision deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.