R. P. A WASTHY, J. ( 1 ) IT is an appeal against the finding of holding the accused-appellant guilty of committing an offence - punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- or in default, to undergo further R. I. for nine months. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case is that about 6 to 7 months prior to the date of incident, a Panchayat was convened in the house of Bhagwat Maharaj, who resides in the same village viz. Hatwaha. The said Panchayat related to the theft having been committed in the house of Bhagwat Maharaj. On being enquired by persons, who had gathered in the said Panchayat, Buchiya (P. W. 5) had stated that it was the accused-appellant Nandi, who had committed the said theft. On account of the said statement made by Buchiya, the accused Nandi bore grudge against Buchiya. ( 3 ) TILL one day prior to the date of incident, Buchiya along with Bhagunta, Nathua, Mihilal and the appellant Nandi used to do manual labour of loading some article on the tractor of Harisingh. However, on the date of the incident viz, on 4. 11. 1985, they were not engaged for doing the said manual labour. All the five persons went to the jungle of village Hatwaha, for hunting hares. While proceeding in the said forest for hunting, the accused-appellant Nandi was armed with an axe, while the co-accused Mihilal was armed with a spear. Bhagunta (P. W. 2), who is somewhat mentally retarded, followed the said persons upto, the forest. ( 4 ) WHEN they reached near the forest, the accused-appellant diverted the attention of Buchiya towards the other side. While Buchiya was looking towards other side, the accused-appellant Nandi dealt a blow by means of an axe on the right thigh of Buchiya, causing fracture of right femur bone. Buchiya fell down on the ground. Thereupon, the accused-appellant Nandi dealt yet another blow on the back of the neck of Buchiya. He also dealt a blow on the left leg near the knee joint of Buchiya. Thereupon, the accused Mihilal caught hold of the axe, which the accused-appellant Nandi was having and with which he had inflicted the said injuries. Thereupon, the accused-appellant Nandi dealt yet another blow on the back of the neck of Buchiya. He also dealt a blow on the left leg near the knee joint of Buchiya. Thereupon, the accused Mihilal caught hold of the axe, which the accused-appellant Nandi was having and with which he had inflicted the said injuries. Buchiya raised an alarm, on hearing - which Fulu, Babbu; Sarup, Nanka, Dasua and others reached the place of incident. ( 5 ) BHAGUNTA narrated the said incident to Mathura (P. W. 1), who happens to be the elder brother of Buchiya. Mathura came to Buchiya where the latter narrated the entire incident to him. Mathura brought Buchiya to the police station Bijawar, where Mathura lodged the first information report Ex. P-i. Buchiya was sent to Government Hospital, Bijawar, where Dr. Ramesh Kumar Neema (P. W. 8) medically examined him and found three incised wounds on the person of Buchiya. Dr. Neema suspected fractures of scapular bone and thoracic vertebra Nos. 1 and 2. He also suspected fracture of femur bone, for which he referred Buchiya for radiological examination. Dr. K. K. Chaturvedi (P. W. 7) took X-ray of the injured part of the body of Buchiya and found that there was fracture of lower part of right femur bone. ( 6 ) ON 26. 11. 1985, the accused-appellant Nandi was apprehended and interrogated in presence of two witnesses by the investigating officer Shri H. K. Parihar (P. W. 9 ). Nandi discovered that he had concealed an axe in the heap of grass belonging to Jainarain. Thereafter the accused-appellant Nandi got the said axe recovered from the said grass heap, which axe was seized as per seizure memo Ex. P-b. As per report of the chemical examiner Ex. P-Il, presence of blood was found on the said axe. Map of the spot was prepared and after completion of investigation, a report under section 173, Cr. P. C. was filed in the competent Court. ( 7 ) ON the charge for the alleged commission of offence punishable under section 307, I. P. C. being framed, the accused abjured his guilt. It has been stated under section 233, Cr. P. C. that he has been falsely implicated. ( 8 ) AFTER recording evidence in the case, the trial Court held the accused-appellant guilty and sentenced him as detailed above. It has been stated under section 233, Cr. P. C. that he has been falsely implicated. ( 8 ) AFTER recording evidence in the case, the trial Court held the accused-appellant guilty and sentenced him as detailed above. ( 9 ) IT has been argued for the accused-appellant that Mathura has not supported the prosecution version and has contradicted the version given in the F. I. R. lodged by him. Bhagunra has given oscillating testimony, which is not worthy of any credence. From the testimony available on record, the motive for commission of offence is not established. In the last, it has been argued that the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused-appellant would not fall within the ambit of an offence punishable under Section 307, I. P. C. ( 10 ) REGARDING sentence, it has been urged that the incident had taken place in the month of November, 1985 and thus after lapse of about nine years the accused-appellant who was released on bail by the High Court as per order dated 23. 9. 1986, should not be sent to jail. ( 11 ) IN reply, the learned Government Panel Advocate Shri S. K. Gangrade fully supported the judgment delivered, finding given and the sentence awarded to the accused-appellant. ( 12 ) INDICATION of motive for commission of the offence is available from the testimony given by Bhagunta (P. W. 2 ). However, it is said that Bhagunta is somewhat mentally retarded. He has given different versions in the testimony. He fully supported the prosecution case in his examination-inchief, but has resiled from it, in his cross-examination. Thereafter, when he was cross-examined by the learned Government Pleader; he again supported the prosecution case but when he was again cross-examined for the accused-appellant, be again stated that he did not see the accusedappellant Nandi causing injuries to Buchiya. ( 13 ) AS the case may be, the incident took place in broad day light. The victim of the incident had full opportunity of seeing the assailant. He has categorically deposed that it was the accused- appellant Nandi, who had voluntarily caused the said injuries on his person. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the said testimony given by Buchiya. The victim of the incident had full opportunity of seeing the assailant. He has categorically deposed that it was the accused- appellant Nandi, who had voluntarily caused the said injuries on his person. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the said testimony given by Buchiya. It is, therefore, held that it is fully established from the evidence available on record that it was the accused-appellant who had inflicted the said injuries on the person of Buchiya. ( 14 ) IT has further to be seen that one after the other, three blows were dealt by means of an fixe by the accused-appellant on the person of Buchiya. Out of the said three injuries, one on the right thigh of Buchiya caused fracture of his femur bone. On account of the said injury, Buchiya has incurred a permanent disability. It has also to be seen that the other blow was dealt on the back portion of the neck of Buchiya. Buchiya has given statement to the effect that the co-accused Mihilal had intervened and had tried to see that no further injury was caused by the said accused appellant on his person. ( 15 ) UNDER the said circumstances, and looking to the weapon used for causing injury, the put of body selected for causing injuries and also the nature of injuries, it cannot be said that no offence punishable under Section 307, I. P. C. is made out against the present accused-appellant. ( 16 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the appeal pertaining to the finding of holding the accused-appellant guilty of having committed an offence punishable under section 307, I. P. C. is disallowed. Only Rs. 2500/- by way of compensation have been awarded to the injured Buchiya out of the amount of fine, if recovered or deposited by the accused-appellant. The said amount is insufficient. However, the respondent-State has not filed any appeal for enhancement of sentence. Therefore, attempt should be made by this Court to see that the injured Buchiya is properly compensated for the injury caused to him and resultant permanent disability incurred by him. From this point of view, the accused-appellant is sentenced to under go R. I. for two years - and to pay a fine of Rs. Therefore, attempt should be made by this Court to see that the injured Buchiya is properly compensated for the injury caused to him and resultant permanent disability incurred by him. From this point of view, the accused-appellant is sentenced to under go R. I. for two years - and to pay a fine of Rs. 6000/- or in default of payment of fine to undergo further R. I. for one year and nine months (for committing an offence punishable u/s 307, I. P. C. ). In case the amount is deposited or recovered from the accused-appellant, the entire amount of Rs. 6000/- shall be paid to Buchiya by way of compensation. If an amount of fine amounting to Rs. 3000/- imposed by the trial Court has been deposited the entire amount of Rs. 3000/- be paid to Buchiya by way of compensation. ( 17 ) THUS but for modifying the sentence awarded to the accused-appellant, as detailed above, the present appeal fails and is disallowed. Appeeal dismissed with modification. .