JUDGMENT On behalf of the appellant, it has been mainly submitted that, in the F.I.R., the name of the assailant has not been mentioned -- although the complainant Harabai, who had lodged the report, had admitted that she knew the assailant. It was further submitted that the offence against the appellant was not fully proved, and that the appellant had been falsely implicated in the case. Harabai (P.W. 2) has clearly stated that she knew Neerabai alias Nirmalabai and that she was living in her house on rent along with her husband and child. From the version of Harabai, it is clear that, at about 11.00 A.M. in the day time, she had heard the cries of Neerabai and also the cries of her daughter Neetu and, then, she had gone to the house of Neerabai, and she saw that the accused Lahnu was sitting on the chest of Neerabai and he was inflicting knife blows on her stomach. From the version of Harabai, it is clear that, at the time of lodging the report, she did not know the name of this accused and, so, she did not name him in the report. However, from the version of Harabai, it is clear that she knew the accused from before although she did not knew his name. Nirmalabai alias Neerabai (P.W. 4) has also fully proved that she knew Lahnu from before and that the accused had come to her house and that he was previously known to her, because he was the Jeth of her sister. From the version of Nirmalabai, it is clear that the accused had assaulted her with a knife on her stomach a number of times and he had caused injuries on her entire body and that, on account of the said injuries, she had fallen down and had, then, become unconscious and that, she had gained consciousness after 2-3 days in the hospital. From the version of Nirmalabai, it is clear that the small child Neetubai had seen the accused assaulting her with the knife and, so, she had gone weeping to her mother and she had called her mother Harabai on the spot. There is no reason to disbelieve the version of Nirmalabai (P.W. 4) which is corroborated by the version of Harabai (P.W. 2) and also corroborated by the medical evidence on record. From the version of Dr. There is no reason to disbelieve the version of Nirmalabai (P.W. 4) which is corroborated by the version of Harabai (P.W. 2) and also corroborated by the medical evidence on record. From the version of Dr. Anjani Jain (P.W. 5), it is clear that as many as 31 wounds had been found on the body of Nirmalabai wife of Dayaram, as per the report (Ex. P-3-A) which is proved by this witness. It is also clear from the medical evidence on record, that four incised wounds were caused on the abdomen of Nirmalabai. Looking to the number of injuries caused with the knife on the person of Nirmalabai, it can safely he conclude that the intention of the accused-appellant Lahnu was to cause the murder of Nirmalabai and, with that intention, he had inflicted as many as 31 incised wounds on the person of Nirmalahai. Considering the evidence on record, the contention raised on behalf of the appellant, that the appellant was falsely implicated in the case, docs not appear to be true. There appears to he little merit in this appeal. However, in my opinion, the sentence of eight years' R.I. awarded to the appellant by the trial Court, appears to he a little harsh. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, a sentence of R.I. for six years' R.I. will meet the ends of justice in the case. The conviction of the appellant Lahnu alias Raju is maintained, hut the sentence of R.I. for eight years, awarded by the trial Court, is reduced to R.I. for six years. Appeal partly allowed.