R. K. DASH, J. ( 1 ) THE accused persons, appel lants herein, faced trial under Sections 307/34, Indian Penal Code in the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna and were found guilty and convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo rigorous im prisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000. 00, in default, to undergo rigorous impri sonment for a further period of six months. They challenged their conviction and sentence before the Sessions Judge by filing appeal which upon hearing was ultimately dismissed and it is against that order of dismissal the present revision is filed. ( 2 ) THE pith and substance of the prosecution case may be stated thus : on 5-1-1993 at about 7. 30 a. m. informant Muralidhar Rana (PW 3) along with his son Nityanand Rana (PW 7) left for Bhawanipatna in a. cycle. No sooner they reached near a water channel situated in between Tentulipada and Turpi, all these accused persons who were lying in wait suddenly emerged being armed with lathis and axe, abused P. W. 1 in filthy language, assaulted him causing severe injuries as a result he dropped down senseless. It is specifically alleged that accused Meghanad inflicted axe blow and the remaining two assaulted him with lathis. The incident was then reported to the police whereupon a case was registered and investiga tion was taken up in course of which PW 1 was sent for medical examination and in close of investigation charge-sheet was laid against all the accused persons to face trial under S. 307/34, Indian Penal Code. The motive for the crime, it is alleged, was due to land dispute for which a case is subjudice between the parties. ( 3 ) THE defence plea was one of denial and false implication due to enmity. ( 4 ) THE prosecution, in order to bring home charge to the accused examined eight witnesses, of whom PW 1 is the X-ray operator, PW 2 is the Radioligist, PW 3 is the injured informant, PWs 4 and 6 are the post -occurrence witnesses, PW 5 is Medical Officer who examined the injured, PW 7 is the son of the informant and PW 8 is the Investigating Officer. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the accused persons strenuously contended that PWs 3 and 7 being interested witnesses and there having no independent corroboration, trial Court should have viewed their evidence with suspicion. It was further urged that even assuming the prosecution allegation to be true, yet no offence under S. 307, Indian Penal Code can be said to have been made out against the accused persons. On the other hand, learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that keeping in view the nature of injuries, manner of assault and loneliness of the place selected for committing the crime, the learned trial Court was perfectly justified in convicting the accused persons guilty under S. 307, Indian Penal Code and the same having been affirmed in appeal, should not be upset by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. ( 6 ) BEFORE adverting to the evidence led in support of the charge it is necessary to find as to whether the prosecution allegation taken as a whole makes out an offence punishable under S. 307, I. P. C. ( 7 ) THE language employed in S. 307, Indian Penal Code makes it clear that intention or knowledge of the assailant is the primary requirement to constitute the offence. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case to find out whether the accused had the intention to cause death or know, in the circum stances, that his act was going to cause death. Though no direct evidence can be led as to what was the intention of the accused, however, same can be ascertained from the nature of the weapon used, the intention expressed by him at the time of the act, the motive for the crime, the nature and size of the injuries, the seat of assault and the severity of the blow or blows. It is, however, not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim should be sufficient in the ordinary circumstances to cause death. What the Court is to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the Section. It is, however, not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim should be sufficient in the ordinary circumstances to cause death. What the Court is to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the Section. In this context reference may be made to the case of Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1965 SC 843 where their Lordships held :"we must point out that the burden is still upon the prosecution to establish that the intention of the appellant in causing the particular injury to Shankar Prasad was of any of the three kinds referred to in S. 300, Indian Penal Code. For, unless the prosecution discharges the burden the offence under S. 307, Indian Penal Code cannot possibly be brought home to the appellant. The state of appellant's mind has to be deduced from the surrounding circumstances. "in Sarju Prasad's case (supra) some earlier decisions of the Bombay High Court and Allahabad High Court were succinctly referred to and discussed. In Queen Empress v. Xiddha, (1892) ILR 14 All 38, Hon'ble Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court observed thus :"the words 'under such circumstances' refer to acts which would introduce a defence to a charge of muders, such as, for instance, that the accused was acting in self-defence or in the course of military duty. But if you have an act done with a sufficiently guilty intention and knowledge and in circumstances which do not from their nature afford a defence to a charge of murder, and if the act is of such a nature as would have caused death in the usual course of events but for something beyond the accused's control which pre vented that result, then it seems to me that the case falls within S. 307. "having considered the various decisions and apply ing the same to the fact of that case their Lordships held that the prosecution could not establish that the offence committed by the appellant was one under S. 307, Indian Penal Code and having held thus, they altered the conviction to one under S. 324, Indian Penal Code. This decision has been consistently followed by this Court in Narayan Swain v. State of Orissa, 1973 Cri LJ 892 and Farooq Khan v. State of Orissa, (1987) 1 OLR 456. This decision has been consistently followed by this Court in Narayan Swain v. State of Orissa, 1973 Cri LJ 892 and Farooq Khan v. State of Orissa, (1987) 1 OLR 456. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, the evidence of the prosecution has to be scanned to find out as to if the offence alleged against the accused persons falls within the ambit of S. 307, I. P. C. ( 8 ) ADMITTEDLY there was bad blood between the parties due to land dispute. On the date of incident at about 8 a. m. while P. W. 3 and his son, P. W. 7 were proceeding from their village, the accused persons suddenly emerged near 'turpi Nala' being armed with lathis and axe and assaulted P. W. 3 causing injuries on his person. It is in the evidence of P. W. 3 that accused Pyarilal and Sanju assaulted him with lathis while Keghused assaulted with a Tangia (axe ). To the same effect is also the evidence of P. W. 7. Searching cross-examination of these two witnesses was made by the defence, but nothing substantial could be elicited to impeach their credibility. Counsel appear ing for the accused persons has, however, urged that since P. Ws. 3 and 7 are inimically disposed towards the accused they are interested in the result of the prosecution case and there being no independent corroboration, it would be highly unsafe to rely upon their testimony to uphold the conviction recorded against the accused persons. It need be mentioned that the incident happened in a lonely place where presence of anybody else cannot be expected to witness the assault. In this view of the matter, P. Ws. 3 and 7 being the only witnesses, their evidence cannot be rejected outright merely because they are interested witnesses. There is no law which says that in absence of any independent witness, evidence of interested witnesses should be thrown overboard or should not be relied upon for convicting an accused. What the law requires is that where the witnesses are interested the court should approach their evidence with care and caution in order to exclude the possibility of false implication. What the law requires is that where the witnesses are interested the court should approach their evidence with care and caution in order to exclude the possibility of false implication. Reference may be made to the case of State of U. P. v. Vinod Kumar, AIR 1992 SC 1011 , where their Lordships observed :"mere interestedness by itself is not a valid ground for discarding or rejecting the sworn testimony nor can it be laid down as an invariable rule that interested evidence can never form the basis of conviction. What all that is necessary is that the evidence of interested or related witnesses should be subjected to a very careful scrutiny with extreme care and caution and if on such scrutiny the testimony is found to be intrinsically reliable then that evidence may be relied upon in the circumstances of the particular case to base a conviction thereon. " ( 9 ) IN the case in hand, learned trial Court who had the occasion to see PWs. 3 and 7 and mark their demeanour scrutinised their evidence in great detail and relied upon their testimony. Equally the appellate court also on assessment of their evidence concurred with the findings recorded by the trial Court. Even sitting in revision I have thoroughly scanned the evidence of P. Ws. 3 and 7 with the assistance of both sides counsel and find no reason to differ from the findings recorded by the courts below. ( 10 ) COMING to the nature of injuries that P. W. 3 sustained, a reference may be made to the evidence of the doctor P. W. 5, as would appear from his evidence, P. W. 3 sustained one incised injury of size 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/4" on the left side check below the left eye and other lacerated injuries, abrasions, braise and swelling of various dimensions on scalp and other parts of his body. In the opinion of the doctor, all the injuries were simple in nature and so far as the incised injury is concerned, it could be caused by sharp cutting weapon like axe and the remaining by blunt weapon. It may be recalled that accused Meghnad although was armed with axe, but he did not cause any injury with its sharp side on any vital part of P. W. 3. It may be recalled that accused Meghnad although was armed with axe, but he did not cause any injury with its sharp side on any vital part of P. W. 3. All the injuries that P. W. 3 sustained on his head were lacerated injuries which according to P. W. 5 could be caused by blunt weapon. Furthermore, the lacerated injuries on the head were of small dimension as is evident from the injury report Ext. 5. If at all it was the intention of the accused persons to do away with the injured, then accused Meghnad who was armed with an axe could have inflicted successive blows or even one blow on the vital part. This apart, no evidence has been led by the prosecution to show about the size of the weapon used, namely, axe and lathi in assaulting the injured. From all these facts it cannot be said with certainty that the accused persons had the intention or knowledge to cause death of the injured. In his view of the matter, the order of conviction and sentence recorded against the accused persons under S. 307, Indian Penal Code cannot be upheld. However, it has been well proved that accused Meghnad assaulted P. W. 3 with an axe and the remaining accused persons with lathis and therefore, accused Meghnad is liable for punishment under S. 324, Indian Penal Code and others under S. 323, Indian Penal Code and accordingly they are convicted thereunder. ( 11 ) I have already stated earlier that the relations between injured in one hand and accused on the other were strained. Accused persons selected a lonely place and assaulted P. W. 3 indiscriminately. As borne out from the doctor's evidence and. the injury report P. W. 3 sustained as many as 13 injuries. Bearing in mind all these facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to extend the beneficial provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act to the accused. In view of my discussions made above, while setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded under S. 207, I. P. C. , I convict accused Meghnath alias Meghnad under S. 324, Indian Penal Code and sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000. 00, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months. 3,000. 00, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months. So far as the remaining two accused persons, namely, Pyarilal and Sanju are concerned, I convict them under S. 323, Indian Penal Code and sentence each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs. 500. 00, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. Out of the fine amount, if realised, an amount of Rs. 2,000. 00 be given to the injured P. W. 3. ( 12 ) WITH the above modification, the revision is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .