JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 3.9.94, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarh Bas (district Alwar), by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused-appellant for the offences under Sections 307,326,324 and 451 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one year's simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo six months' simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 326 Indian Penal Code; one year's rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 324 Indian Penal Code and one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month's simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 451 Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Appellant Ramjas was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the offences under Sections 307, 326, 324 and 452 Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution is that in the night intervening 1st and 2nd January, 1994, at about 10.00 p.m., when Girdhari (PW 3) was sleeping in the Chhappar at his house situated in village Rawarka the accused-appellant entered into the Chhappar and inflicted injuries by the sharp-edged weapon on his hand, jaw and the head. Girdhari raised cries which attracted Murli, Yad Ram, Krishna and Rohtas. They immediately came there and saw the accused running. They followed the accused but the accused wielded the Barsala over them, also, and being threatened, they returned back. Therefore Lal Singh (PW 4), also, came there. In the night they remained in the village and in the morning, they took injured Girdhari first to the Police Station, Tapukara, where they lodged the report, and thereafter the injured was taken to the hospital. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined ten witnesses. The accused did not examine any witness in his defence. However, the case of the accused, in defence, is that he was not feeling well and was having fever; Rohtas offered him wine, which he took and he cannot say how the incident took place. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined ten witnesses. The accused did not examine any witness in his defence. However, the case of the accused, in defence, is that he was not feeling well and was having fever; Rohtas offered him wine, which he took and he cannot say how the incident took place. The learned trial Court, after trial, acquitted the accused of the offence under Section 452 Indian Penal Code but convicted and sentenced him as stated above. It is against this judgment dated 3.9.94 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicting and sentencing the appellant for the aforesaid offences that the appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. The learned amicus curiae has challenged the conviction of the appellant on the various grounds, i.e., (i) there was a delay in lodging the FIR; (ii) the appellant had no motive to cause the death of the injured or to inflict such injury to him; (iii) it was dark light and as such it was not possible for the prosecution witnesses to have identified lie accused, particularly by the injured (Girdhari) who is aged about 70 years and has not been able to identify the accused in the trial Court from some distance; (iv) all the witnesses produced by the prosecution are relative and interested witnesses; (v) the Barsala - the weapon of the offence - is not connected with the crime as no blood was found on it; and (vi) the ocular testimony produced by the prosecution does not find to corroboration from the medical evidence. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the judgment passed by the learned trial Court. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 5. Before dealing with the points raised by the learned amicus curiae, it would be better first to see the nature of the evidence produced by the prosecution. The case of the prosecution rests upon the evidence of PW 3 Girdhari - the injured eye-witness-which is sought to be corroborated by the evidence of PW 5 Murli, PW 6 Yad Ram, PW 7 Krishna and PW 9 Rohtas, who came at the scene of the occurrence immediately after hearing the cries of PW 3 Girdhari and saw the accused-appellant running from the place of the incident. This evidence is further sought to be corroborated by the evidence of PW 1 Dr. Bhim Singh Bagri, who was the Medical Officer posted at Primary Health Centre, Tapukara, where the injured was brought and who, after medically examining the injured, found three injuries on the person of Girdhari - out of which injuries Nos. 1 and 2 were found grievous and the injury No. 3 was found simple. He referred for X-ray of the injuries No. 1 and 2. PW 8 Dr. B.L. Gupta was the Radiologist, who, after X-ray examination, gave his opinion that injuries No. 1 and 2 were having the fractures. PW 2 Maman Singh was the Station House Officer, Police Station, Tapukara, in whose presence the FIR was recorded and who, after registration of the F.I.R., handed over the investigation to PW 10 Mohan Singh, A.S.I., who, after investigation, placed the papers before PW 2 Maman Singh, who filed the challan against the appellant in the Court.The first contention, raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, is that there was a delay of about twelve hours in lodging the F.I.R., which has not been explained by the prosecution and as such the prosecution case deserves to be thrown-away on this count alone. The incident took place in the night at about 10.00 p.m. Girdhari received three injuries on his person. The distance between Rawarka and Police Station, Tapukara is 13 kilometres. The witnesses have stated that in the night, no conveyance was available and, therefore, the injured was taken to Tapukara in the morning. Looking to the distance between village Rawarka and Tapukara and the non-availability of the conveyance in the night, the delay in lodging the report has been properly explained by the prosecution. The delay of twelve hours in lodging the report, in such circumstances, cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution and it has been properly explained by the prosecution. 6. The next contention raised by the learned amicus curiae is that there was no motive with the accused-appellant to inflict injury or to attempt to commit the murder of the injured. 6. The next contention raised by the learned amicus curiae is that there was no motive with the accused-appellant to inflict injury or to attempt to commit the murder of the injured. It has been admitted by all the prosecution witnesses including PW 3 Girdhari (the injured) and his sons PW 4 Lal Singh and PW 5 Murli that there was no enmity between the accused and the injured and they have, also, failed to show the motive why the injuries were inflicted by the accused-appellant to the injured. The prosecution has failed to prove the motive against the accused-appellant. But the evidence of the eye- witnesses cannot be disbelieved merely on this ground that there was no motive with the accused to inflict injuries to the injured, when the witnesses have seen the accused-appellant inflicting injuries to Girdhari. Of course, motive plays an important role in coming to the conclusion regarding the guilt of the accused but merely on account of absence of the motive, the prosecution case cannot be disbelieved. 7. The next contention, raised by the learned counsel for the appellant (learned amicus curiae) is that it was a dark night and it was not possible for the witnesses to have identified the accused-appellant. All the witnesses have admitted that it was a dark night but the accused-appellant was the neighbour of Girdhari and was known to these witnesses. The injuries were inflicted by the accused-appellant to Girdhari in the close proximity and, therefore, it was possible for the witnesses to have identified the accused even in the slight light which was available at that time. The appellant inflicted injuries while remained standing by the side of the cot of PW 3 Girdhari and he inflicted three injuries and at that time the appellant could have been identified by injured Girdhari. The cries raised by Girdhari attracted Murli, Yad Ram, Krishna and Rohtas, who came running and saw the accused running. They followed the accused-appellant. As they are, also, the neighbourers of the appellant, they could have identified the accused in the slight light available at that time. The contention, raised by the learned amicus curiae, is, therefore, devoid of any force. 8. They followed the accused-appellant. As they are, also, the neighbourers of the appellant, they could have identified the accused in the slight light available at that time. The contention, raised by the learned amicus curiae, is, therefore, devoid of any force. 8. The next contention, raised by the learned amicus curiae, is that all the witnesses are relative to the complainant and are interested witnesses and no independent witness of the locality has been produced by the prosecution and, therefore, no conviction of the appellant can be based on the basis of the statements of the relative and interested witnesses. The incident took place at about 10.00 p.m. in the night. PW 5 Murli is the son of injured Girdhari and was living in the same house. PW 6 Yad Ram, PW 7 Krishna and PW 9 Rohtas are the neighbourers, whose houses are situated nearby the house of the accused-appellant. The cries raised by Girdhari attracted them. They came running after hearing the cries of Girdhari. They were the only persons who could have come at the scene of the occurrence after hearing the cries. It has not come in the evidence that the house of the other persons were there and who had seen the incident and came out. Merely being the relative witnesses, the evidence of such witnesses cannot be thrown away and at the most it can be said that it should be scrutinised with care and caution. After going through the statements of these witnesses, who have been cross-examined at length by the learned counsel for the accused in the trial Court, nothing could be turned out in their cross-examination which could shake the veracity of the statements of these witnesses. They stood the test of cross-examination well, and I am of the opinion that they are wholly reliable witnesses and they have deposed what they had actually seen. Their evidence inspires confidence. The contention, raised by the learned amicus curiae has no merit. 9. The next contention raised by the learned amicus curiae is that the recovery of Barsale cannot be read as an incriminating circumstance against the accused-appellant as it was not found stained with human blood. The recovery of Barsala was made from an open place accessible to all and sundry. No blood was found on it and it was not sent for chemical examination. The recovery of Barsala was made from an open place accessible to all and sundry. No blood was found on it and it was not sent for chemical examination. The learned trial Court was, therefore, right in not believing this circumstance against the accused-appellant. 10. The last contention raised by the learned amicus curiae is that the ocular testimony of PW 3 Girdhari does not find corroboration from the medical evidence. The contention raised by the learned amicus curiae is devoid of any force. PW 3 Girdhari has stated that the accused inflicted three injuries by Barsala on his person and the medical evidence, also, corroborates this fact. The contention, raised by the learned amicus curiae, is, therefore, devoid of any force. 11. The prosecution has, therefore, been able to prove that the accused-appellant was the perpetrator of the crime, who inflicted the injuries by the sharp-edged weapon to the injured. 12. The question, which, now, requires consideration is : what offence has been committed by the accused-appellant? To justify a conviction under Section 307 Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to prove that the accused acted with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if he, by that act, causes death, he will be guilty of murder. For proving the offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code, if is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim of the assault should be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the person assaulted, and the Court has to see whether the net irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge to cause death. In the absence of any injury found on the persons, the knowledge or intention can be gathered from the attending circumstances, but where the injury has been caused then the nature of the injury actually caused, the place of the body selected by the accused, the force used in infliction of the injuries and the circumstances in which these injuries were caused, give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention or knowledge of the accused. The intention can be gathered from the other circumstances, also. In the present case, as per the prosecution case, the accused-appellant was armed with Barsala. Girdhari was sleeping in his house. No other person was present in the Chhappar where Girdhari was sleeping. The intention can be gathered from the other circumstances, also. In the present case, as per the prosecution case, the accused-appellant was armed with Barsala. Girdhari was sleeping in his house. No other person was present in the Chhappar where Girdhari was sleeping. If the accused-appellant had any intention to commit the murder of Girdhari then he had ample opportunity with him to do the same. The appellant inflicted three injuries, one on the hand, the other on the jaw and the last on the parietal region of Girdhari. Thereafter he did not inflict any more injury. The intention, that can be arrived-at is that the intention of the accused-appellant was only to cause grievous injuries to Girdhari and not to commit his murder and with that intention the accused inflicted the injuries to Girdhari by Barsala. The appellant therefore, deserves acquittal from the offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and can be convicted for the offence under Section 326 Indian Penal Code for causing grievous injuries on the head and jaw of Girdhari. The learned trial Court was, therefore, not justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code. The conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code. is, therefore, liable to be quashed and set-aside. However, the conviction of the appellant for the offences under Sections 326,324 and 351 Indian Penal Code are maintained but the sentence awarded to him by the learned trial Court for the offence under Section 326 Indian Penal Code is, also, reduced. The appellant is behind the bars since 3.1.94 and has already undergone the imprisonment for about one year and nine months excluding the period of remission. The sentence awarded to the appellant by the learned trial Court for the offence under Section 326 Indian Penal Code is, therefore, reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him and a fine of Rs. 500 / -(Rs. five hundred only) and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. The conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offences under Sections 324 and 451 Indian Penal Code are, however, maintained. 13. In the result, the appeal, filed by the appellant, is partly allowed. 500 / -(Rs. five hundred only) and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. The conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offences under Sections 324 and 451 Indian Penal Code are, however, maintained. 13. In the result, the appeal, filed by the appellant, is partly allowed. His conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code are quashed and set-aside and his conviction under Sections 326,324 and 451 Indian Penal Code are maintained. The sentence awarded to the appellant by the learned trial Court for the offences under Sections 324 and 451 Indian Penal Code are, also, maintained. However, the sentence awarded to the appellant for the offence under Section 326 Indian Penal Code is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him during the investigation, inquiry or trial and the sentence of fine for the offence under Section 326 Indian Penal Code is reduced to Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, he further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.Appeal partly allowed. *******