J. C. CHITRE, J. ( 1 ) THE appellants by this appeal assail order of conviction and sentence passed against them by learned 3rd Addi. Sessions Judge Ujjain in the matter of S. T. No. 152 of 1988 wherein the appellants have been convicted for offence under 5. 307, I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo R. I for five years each. ( 2 ) PRODUCTION case in brief is that on 20/7/1987 at about 6. 30 p. m. P. W. Laxminarayan was returning to his house along with prosecution witnesses Bansilal and Shakarlal, riding on his bicycle. When they came near Paliya, the appellants met them and out of them appellant Bansi Das stopped his bicycle and demanded Bidi. P. W. Bansilal gave Bidi to appellant Bansidas who lit that bidi and thereafter whipped out a knife and gave blow of it on left flank of chest of Laxminarayan. After receiving blow of knife from appellant Bansidas, Laxminarayan left bicycle and Started running with bleeding injury. As per prosecution case, at that time appellant Jagdish gave him two stick blows. ( 3 ) P. W. Bansilal and Shankarlal intervened. Thereafter wounded Laxminarayan was brought to Ujjain in a tempo where he was medically treated in the hospital. After necessary investigation, the appellants were tried before the learned Addi. Sessions Judge, who after recording evidence and appreciating it in view of the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, passed order of conviction and sentenced as stated above. ( 4 ) SHRI A. J. Bhojwani learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned trial Judge committed error in convicting both the appellants for offence punishable under S. 307, I. P. C. Learned Govt. Advocate Shri Desai justified the said order of conviction and sentence as correct, proper and legal. Learned counsel for the appellant while canvassing his arguments made reference to the prosecution evidence and appointed out that there was absolutely no evidence against the appellant Jagdish for sustaining conviction for offence under S. 307, I. P. C. So far as appellant Jagdish is concerned, I find substance in his submission for the reasons mentioned hereunder. ( 5 ) SO far as evidence of victim Laxminarayan is concerned, in examination in chief he stated that appellant Jagdish hit him with stick twice when he was falling on the, ground after running away. ( 5 ) SO far as evidence of victim Laxminarayan is concerned, in examination in chief he stated that appellant Jagdish hit him with stick twice when he was falling on the, ground after running away. But in cross-examination he stated that when bidi was lit by appellant Bansidas he, gave fist blow to him, he started running and at that time appellant Jagdish hit him with stick. He further stated in cross-examination that it was written erroneously in statement recorded by the Investigating officer during investigation that firstly he was assaulted by appellant Bansidas by knife and, thereafter appellant Jagdish hit him with stick. On this point prosecution witnesses Bansilal and Shankarlal did not support the prosecution case, though questions were asked to them in the nature of cross-examination by learned Public Prosecutor. It has not come on record that with so ulterior motive they were so telling the false hood. Further more, it is important to note that the medical officer Dr. Gurjar in his evidence did not state that there were injuries on body of the victim Laxminarayan indicating that he was assaulted by stick. The medical certificate, which has been produced by the prosecution in support of evidence of Dr. Gurjar docs not show that P. W. Laxminarayan sustained any injury, which was indicating that he was assaulted by stick. ( 6 ) WHEN the prosecution relied upon solitary testimony of victim Laxminarayan for sustaining conviction against appellant Jagdish, it is necessary to see whether his evidence is that way sufficient for basing conviction against appellant Jagdish. It is true that conviction can be based in a criminal trial against the accused on solitary testimony of a witness. But in that case the evidence of such solitary witness should inspire confidence in the mind and it should be sterling sound. The evidence of victim Laxminarayan is not so, so far as the case of appellant Jagdish is concerned. Further more, his evidence is not corroborated on material particulars by independent evidence on record. On the contrary other evidence adduced by the prosecution runs across the testimony of Laxminarayan so far as appellant Jagdish is concerned. The evidence of victim Laxminarayan is not so, so far as the case of appellant Jagdish is concerned. Further more, his evidence is not corroborated on material particulars by independent evidence on record. On the contrary other evidence adduced by the prosecution runs across the testimony of Laxminarayan so far as appellant Jagdish is concerned. ( 7 ) THE learned trial Judge has not considered the prosecution evidence properly so far as appellant Jagdish is concerned and, therefore, the learned trial Judge has committed error in convicting him and thereafter sentencing him for offence punishable under S. 307, I. P. C. His conviction and sentence will have to be set aside. ( 8 ) SO far as case of appellant Bansidas is concerned, Shri Bhojwani learned counsel for the appellants submitted that evidence of P. W. Laxminarayan does not deserve to be believed. I do not find any substance in his submission, because when appellant Bansidas whipped out knife after getting bidi from P. W. Bansilal, victim Laxminarayan had sufficient opportunity to see him. It is the evidence of P. W. Laxminarayan that appellant Bansidas gave blow of knife on his chest and because of that he ran after leaving his bicycle for some distance with bleeding injury. The evidence of Laxminarayan has been well corroborated by evidence of Dr. Gurjar who stated that when he medically examined P. W. 1 Laxminarayan, he noticed an incised wound on his chest. It is to be noted that Dr. Gurjar medically examined Laxminarayan on 20/7/1987. There is medical certificate issued by Dr. Gurjar, which corroborates his evidence. ( 9 ) IT is true that P. W. Bhansilal and Shankarlal did not support the prosecution case so far as the case of appellant Bansidas is concerned but their act of not supports the prosecution case, cannot brush aside the evidence of victim Laxminarayan which is well corroborated by medical evidence. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel with Bhojwani urged that P. W. Laxminarayan stated against Bansidas because appellant Bansidas s sister was with P. W. Laxmiriarayan and appellant Bansidas was asking him to leave her. There is nothing on record to come to a conclusion that it was so. There is no reason as to why victim Laxminarayan would give such falls evidence against appellant Bansidas leaving free his assailant. There is nothing on record to come to a conclusion that it was so. There is no reason as to why victim Laxminarayan would give such falls evidence against appellant Bansidas leaving free his assailant. I do no find any ground to disbelieve the evidence of prosecution adduced for bringing guilt home to the appellant Bansidas. The learned trial Judge has rightly conclude that the prosecution has proved that appellant Bansidas inflicted injury on the chest of Laxminarayan by knife on 20/7/1987 at about 6. 30 p. m. Shri Bhojwani submitted that the offence if proved against appellant Bansidas would be at the most one coming under the purview of S. 308, I. P. C. , because the evidence adduced by the prosecution does not prove that by inflicting that blow appellant Bansidas had an intention of committing murder of P. W. Laxminarayan and he attempted to commit his murder. Shri Desai learned Dy. Govt. Advocate submitted that the trial Judge has rightly convicted appellant Bansidas for offence punishable under S. 307, I. P. C. ( 11 ) I dismiss the submission made on behalf of the appellants, because the injury is, on simple as argued by him. The injury is on the chest damaging 7th and 9th ribs, disphragm and liver of Laxminarayan. The direction of the said injury itself shows that the blow was given with calculation. The prosecution evidence on record proves that appellant Bansidas had sufficient time to select the particular part of body where the said blow should land and be picked lip the chest for landing the said blow of knife. It is pertinent to note at this juncture that it has come in the evidence of P. W. Laxminarayan that after getting said knife blow, he ran with hand on the injury and when that hand was released, the blood flushed out like fountain. When that is so, how can it be aid that injury was not serious one 7 When the blow is given with a lethal weapon in calculated manner the intention behind it has to be gathered appropriately. ( 12 ) LEARNED Counsel Shri Bhojwani relied on a judgment of our High Court in the matter of Jagannath v. State of M. P. . In that matter, the injury was on the chest of the victim which caused death and second blow was not given. ( 12 ) LEARNED Counsel Shri Bhojwani relied on a judgment of our High Court in the matter of Jagannath v. State of M. P. . In that matter, the injury was on the chest of the victim which caused death and second blow was not given. There is no description of injury in the judgment on which learned Advocate Shri Bhojwani has placed reliance. It is not clear from the judgment as to which were the circumstances in which single Bench of our High Court concluded that the act committed by that accused was falling under S. 304 part II, I. P. C. ( 13 ) IN the present matter, the appellant had sufficient opportunity to select portion of the body for giving blow, said blow was given on the chest of the victim after the appellant demanded bidi, lit it After liting the said bidi, he took out knife and then inflicted the said blow on the chest of victim. This blow was given with calculated action. When the said blow was given when such serious injury was caused on chest of the victim, and in such calculated manner, what could have been the intention otherwise than to attempt to commit murder of Laxminarayan? By grace of God Laxminarayan has survived and, therefore, gravity of the act committed by appellant Bansidas is reduced comparatively, and he did not face a trial u/s. 302, I. P. C. ( 14 ) THUS, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that conviction of appellant Bansidas for offence under S. 307, I. P. C. is correct legal and proper learned trial Judge has committed no mistake on this point. ( 15 ) LEARNED counsel Shri Bhojwani urged that sentence inflicted on the appellant is too severe. The sentence is of R. I. for five years. S. 307 I. P. C. provides that if injury is caused can be extended to imprisonment for life in view of seriousness of the injury sustained by Laxminarayan, R. I. for five years as sentence, is not at all severe. Thus I dismiss the submission of Sri Bhojwarti on this point also. ( 16 ) IN the result, appeal of appellant Jagdish is hereby allowed. Order of conviction and sentence recorded against him in S. T. No. 152/88 is hereby set aside and he is acquitted. His bail bonds stand discharged. Thus I dismiss the submission of Sri Bhojwarti on this point also. ( 16 ) IN the result, appeal of appellant Jagdish is hereby allowed. Order of conviction and sentence recorded against him in S. T. No. 152/88 is hereby set aside and he is acquitted. His bail bonds stand discharged. No interference in the order of conviction and sentence in respect of appellant Bansidas is called for and it is confirmed. No interference in the order passed by the trial Court in respect of disposal of property. The trial Court to issue arrest warrant against appellant Bansidas for sending him to appropriate prison for undergoing the sentence awarded to him. Appeal of appellant allowed. Conviction of appellant B confirmed. .