JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.10.93, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Udaipur, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo seven years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. 2. Accused-appellant Mohan Lal was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Udaipur, for the offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution is that on 4.7.91, at about 7.00 p.m., Smt. Homli R/o Pai, had gone to take her bath in a river, where the accused came suddenly and inflicted injuries by Kulhari on the head and other parts of her body. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined eight witnesses and the accused, in his defence, examined two witnesses. PW 4 Smt. Homli is the injured, who was given beatings by the accused, who was her husband. PW 6 Bhaira and PW 8 Mangia are the two eye-witnesses of the occurrence. PW 6 Bhaira came at the place of the incident immediately after hearing the cries of Smt. Homli and saw the accused inflicting injury to Smt. Homli, while PW 8 Mangia came at the place of the occurrence after the infliction of injuries by the accused to Smt. Homli and he only saw the accused running away. This witness has not stated that he saw the accused-appellant inflicting any injury to Smt. Homli. The evidence of these two so-called eye-witnesses, viz., PW 6 Bhaira and PW 8 Mangia, have not been believed by the learned trial Court regarding their seeing the infliction of the injuries by the accused to Smt. Homli and they have been believed only to the extent that they saw the accused running after infliction of the injuries to Smt. Homli. PW 1 Abdul Yakub is the Station House Officer, Police Station, Nai who filed the challan. PW 2 Lalu Ram and PW 3 Thawra are the two Motbir witnesses regarding the recoveries and preparation of the site-plan. PW 5 Dr. N.S. Kothari was the Medical Jurist posted at General Hospital, Udaipur, who medically examined PW 4 Smt. Homli and found seven injuries on her person. PW 2 Lalu Ram and PW 3 Thawra are the two Motbir witnesses regarding the recoveries and preparation of the site-plan. PW 5 Dr. N.S. Kothari was the Medical Jurist posted at General Hospital, Udaipur, who medically examined PW 4 Smt. Homli and found seven injuries on her person. According to him, out of these seven injuries, two were on her head and were bone deep. PW 7 Mitthu Singh was the Head Constable posted at Police Station, Nai, who investigated the matter. DW1 Jeewa - the father of the accused-appellant and DW 2 Devi Lal have been produced by the accused to show that the relations between Smt. Homli and the accused were cordial and they never saw the accused inflicting injury on the person of Smt. Homli and stated that Smt. Homli has gone in the Nata with some other person. 3. The prosecution case mainly rests upon the statement of PW 4 Smt. Homli - the injured witness. She has stated that she was married to accused Mohan Lal and stayed with him for two-three months and thereafter she was turned out from the house. On the relevant day, when she had gone to the river for taking her bath, the accused suddenly appeared and inflicted injuries by the Kulhari on her head, ear, nose, hips and other parts of her body. She raised an alarm. The report of the incident was not lodged on the same day as no conveyance was available and she narrated the incident to her father. A lengthy cross-examination was conducted with this witness but nothing could be elicited from her cross- examination which could discredit her statement. The evidence of this injured witness, therefore, inspires confidence. The statement of PW 4 Smt. Homli finds corroboration from the statement of PW 5 Dr. N.S. Kothari, who found seven injuries on her person, out of which one was grievous in nature while the others were simple in nature and were inflicted by sharp-edged weapon. The statement of Smt. Homli further finds support from the statements of PW 6 Bhaira and PW 8 Mangia who had seen the accused going with a Kulhari from the place of the incident when they reached at the place of the occurrence on hearing the out- cries of Smt. Homli. The statement of Smt. Homli further finds support from the statements of PW 6 Bhaira and PW 8 Mangia who had seen the accused going with a Kulhari from the place of the incident when they reached at the place of the occurrence on hearing the out- cries of Smt. Homli. Thus, the infliction of the injuries by the Kulhari by accused-appellant on the person of Smt. Homli, therefore, stands proved. 4. The next question, which requires consideration in the present case, is : What offence has been committed by the accused- appellant ? There were seven injuries by a sharp-edged weapon on the person of Smt. Homli, out of which six injuries were simple in nature and one injury was found grievous by the doctor. The doctor has not stated that the injuries inflicted by the accused on the person of Smt. Homli were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause her death. To justify the conviction under Section 307 Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to prove that the injuries inflicted by the accused were capable of causing the death and the accused acted with an intention or knowledge that by his act the death of the victim would be caused. From the evidence produced by the prosecution it cannot be said that the infliction of the injuries by the accused was with an intention or knowledge to cause the death of Smt. Homli. The accused, therefore, cannot be held liable for committing the offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and at the most he can be held liable for inflicting grievous injury to the victim and, therefore, he can be convicted for the offence under Section 326 Indian Penal Code. The appellant, therefore, deserve to be acquitted of the offence under Section 307 and he can be convicted for the offence under Section 326 Indian Penal Code. 5. In the result, the appeal, filed by accused-appellant Mohan Lal, is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed against the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code are quashed and set-aside and he is convicted for the offence under Section 326 Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to the imprisonment already undergone by him and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo fifteen days' rigorous imprisonment.Appeal partly allowed. *******