JUDGMENT Respondent-accused Kapilram was tried on the charges under section 307 and 450 of the IPC, on the accusation of his having attempted at the life of his aunt Suraj Bai, in the morning of 23.6.85, by causing multiple injuries on her person by means of a tangia, a sharp edged weapon. The accused abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication. At the trial, prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. The trial Court, relying upon the evidence of Suraj Bai (PW 1), which was found corroborated by the evidence of Hatiayarin Bai (PW 2) and the other evidence on record, held accused-respondent Kapilram guilty of causing as many as 10 external injuries on her person. On considering the nature of the injury and the other surrounding circumstances and the fact that though there were external injuries on her head region and neck, but neither any of the corresponding bones sustained any fracture nor any other internal organ was damaged, the trial Court arrived at the conclusion that the Act of the respondent-accused, in causing those injuries on injured Suraj Bai, did not amount to the offence of 'attempt to murder', punishable under section 307 of the IPC, but amounted to the offence of 'causing grievous injuries by means of a sharp edged weapon', punishable under section 326, of IPC. The trial Court, therefore, while acquitting him of the charge under section 307, of the IPC, convicted him under section 326, of the IPC. On taking into consideration the fact that the respondent-accused has already remained in jail for about 8 months and the accused and the injured complainant, being closely related, had amicably reached to a compromise, found that jail sentence of the period already undergone by the accused and fine Rs. 1,000/- would be the sufficient punishment for the offence under section 326, of the IPC, and would meet the ends of justice and, therefore, convicted and sentenced him accordingly. The sole question, which now survives for our consideration in this appeal, is whether the act of the respondent-accused, in causing injuries to injured Suraj Bai, would amount to the offence of attempt to murder, punishable under section 307, of the IPC, or would be only of 'causing grievous injuries', punishable under section 326 of the IPC, as held by the trial Court. Thus, as many as 8 external injuries, all incised wounds, were found on the person of injured Suraj Bai, on her medical examination by Dr. Premsingh (PW 5). Her right tibia and fibula were found fractured and so also dislocation with fracture was detected on her right shoulder region. Out of the 8 incised wounds, only two were on the vital parts of the body i.e. one each on right fore-head and the right side of the neck. The remaining 6 incised wounds were on the left fore-arm, left elbow joint, near the shoulder joint, right upper arm, right shoulder joint and left heel. On considering the nature of the injuries and the fact that the injuries on the vital parts of the body did not result in the fracture of any of the corresponding bones, nor any of the corresponding internal organ was damaged and the fact that the respondent-accused, being the nephew of injured Suraj Bai, had no apparent reason or motive to cause her death, we do not find any material to disagree with the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court, in holding that the evidence on record fell short of establishing the charge under section 307, of the IPC, against the respondent-accused. The view taken by the trial Court is in line with the Apex Court dictum, in the case of Jai Narain Mishra and others v. The State of Bihar.( AIR 1972 SC 1764 ). In this view of matter, we do not find any scope for interference in this appeal. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal, filed by the State against the acquittal of the respondent-accused of the charge u/s 307, of the IPC, fails and is hereby dismissed. The impugned judgment of acquittal of the respondent-accused of the charge u/s 307 of the IPC, is hereby affirmed.