JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 14th October, 1998 in Sessions Case No.79/90 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Udaipur whereby the appellant was convicted under Secs.307 and 342 I.PC. He was sentenced to 4 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for 3 months under Section 307 I.RC. and further sentenced to 6 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 342 I.PC. 2. The prosecution case is that Rajesh Kumar s/s Prabhulal Suwalka resident of Devpura, a student, was going to the house of the tailor Bhagwatilal at about 8.00 RM. on 4.10.1990. He was passed in front of the house of appellant Veerji, who was standing there and told him that he is always hostile and acts against him. The Appellant Veerji forcibly took him in his from his pocket and inflicted a blow on the left chest. However, the injured Rajesh Kumar rescued himself and came out of the house. His father Prabhulal P.W. 2, mother Smt. Kaushalya Devi RW.3 and Bhagwatilal PW.5 reached at the place of occurrence. The First information Report was ledged by Rajesh Kumar at 11.30 P.M. at Police Station, Jawar Mines. The case was registered under Secs.307, 342 I.RC. and 4/25 Arms Act and after completing usual investigation charge sheet was submitted against the appellant and one Taju. On committal of the case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Udaipur held the trial. During the trial both the accused persons absented themselves. However, Taju was arrested and produced in the Court, who faced the trial and by the judgment dated 26.6.1998 he was acquitted of the offences under Secs.342, 307 read with 34, 329 read with 34 and 323 I.P.C. Later on, the accused appellant Veerji was also arrested and on completion of the trial, the impugned judgment and order of sentence was passed against him as stated above. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the offence under Sec.307 I.P.C. is not made out because there is no fracture on the person of injured Rajesh and there was no repetition of the blow. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the offence under Sec.307 I.P.C. is not made out because there is no fracture on the person of injured Rajesh and there was no repetition of the blow. If 'the petitioner's intention was to cause death of Rajesh then he would have repeated the blows for which there was no hinderance, because according to the prosecution' the appellant had forcibly taken Rajesh inside the house and bolted the doors. Therefore, the offence falls within the ambit of Section 324 or at the most 326 I.RC.. He also contended that it is revealed from the statements of the eye witnesses that in fact they have no seen the appellant causing the alleged injury to Rajesh. The recovery of the knife is also not proved in consequence of the information and out of the conscious and exclusive possession of the appellant. More-over, the prosecution has failed to prove by proper link evidence that the knife remained intact and sealed condition in Malkhana till it was delivered in the Forensic Science Laboratory. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the prosecution has failed to prove the offences alleged against the appellant. The learned Public Prosecutor supported the judgment contending that the guilt has been brought at home beyond reasonable doubt to the appellant by the statement of injured Rajesh which is fully corroborated by the medical evidence. The prosecution case is further supported by Prabhulal, Smt. Kaushlaya, Bhagwatilal and other witnesses. 4. I have perused the oral and documentary evidence on record and also considered the rival submissions. The prosecution has not produced the chemical examination report about knife alleged to have been recovered in consequence of the information and the possession of the accused from his house under the Kawalu roof. Therefore, the recovery of knife looses its evidentiary value because there is no evidence to show that it was stained with human blood and a particular group tallying with the blood group of the injured Rajesh. Thus, in the absence of this link evidence the recovery of knife becomes inconsequential. 5. The prosecution case rests on the oral evidence in the statement of Rajesh RW. 4 which is corroborated by the injury report Ex.R9 proved by Dr. G.L. Dad P.W. 16 and other witnesses Pyara RW. Thus, in the absence of this link evidence the recovery of knife becomes inconsequential. 5. The prosecution case rests on the oral evidence in the statement of Rajesh RW. 4 which is corroborated by the injury report Ex.R9 proved by Dr. G.L. Dad P.W. 16 and other witnesses Pyara RW. 1, Prabhulal P.W.2, Kaushlaya PW.3 and Bhagwatilal P.W.5. Rajesh RW.4 has categorically deposed that when he was going to the house of Bhagwatilal Tailor and passed in front of the house of the appellant, he was caught by the appellant and took him to his house. The appellant bolted the door and inflicted injury by knife on his left chest saying that he will kill him. He raised cries, which attracted at the place of occurrence his father Prabhulal, Bhagwatilal and Pyara. They intervened and saved him from further blows. The above witnesses have supported the prosecution case. I have perused the cross examination of all the above witnesses and find no material to discredit their testimony. I am of the view that the learned Trial Court has rightly believed the statements of aforesaid witnesses. The finding of the Trial Court that the appellant inflicted injury on the chest with an intention to kill Rajesh is based on correct appreciation of the above witnesses. It is is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant inflicted the injury by knife to Rajesh, which has been further corroborated by Dr. G.L. Dad P.W.16. I am unable to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is not proved because the accused had no intention to cause death of Rajesh. The appellant inflicted the injury by deadly weapon knife on the vital part of the body i.e., the left chest uttering that he will kill him. Dr.Dad P.W.16 has in no uncertain terms has opined that the injury was sufficient to cause death of the injured. It is true that there was no fracture of any bone but by itself it cannot be concluded that the injury was simple in nature. Dr. Dad has stated that the injured was operated upon to remove the blood clots. The pleura covering the lungs also suffered wound. In view of the above facts and circumstances and nature of the injury, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that in the ordinary course of nature to case death. Dr. Dad has stated that the injured was operated upon to remove the blood clots. The pleura covering the lungs also suffered wound. In view of the above facts and circumstances and nature of the injury, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that in the ordinary course of nature to case death. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I hold that the prosecution has succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt the offences under Secs.307 and 342 I.P.C. against the appellant for which the appellant has been rightly convicted by the learned Trial Court. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted for reducing the sentence to the period already undergone on the ground that the incident relates to the year 1990, the appellant has suffered acute mental agony and financial losses for the last 9 years and he has also partly seved the sentence by remaining in Jail for 12 months and 25 days. The injured Rajesh has also admitted in cross examination that prior to this occurrence there was no dispute or enmity with the appellant. The appellant's contention during the trial was that the injured used to come to his house to meet his sister for which he strongly objected and asked the injured to desist from it. In support of his contention reliance was placed on Ajamtulla & Goriya v. State of Rajasthan, (1981 RCC 250 ), Bhagwan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1981 Cr.L.R.(Raj.)(20) , Muzafar Hussain v. State of Rajasthan, (1986 Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 674 ) and Khatanmal v. State of Rajasthan, (1988 W.L.N. (UC) 247) . The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that looking to the nature of the injury sustained by the injured adequate punishment should be given and compensation should be also awarded to the injured. Having regard to the rival submissions and the over all facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it just and proper to reduce the sentence of imprisonment passed against the appellant to the already undergone period on both the court. However, the sentence of fine must be enhanced in order to award compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the injured Rajesh. 7. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant Veerji under Secs. 307 and 342 I.P.C. is hereby affimed. However, the sentence of fine must be enhanced in order to award compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the injured Rajesh. 7. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant Veerji under Secs. 307 and 342 I.P.C. is hereby affimed. The sentence of imprisonment on both the counts is reduced to the period already undergone, but sentence of fine of Rs.1000/- is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Out of the fine deposited by the appellant, the compensation of Rs. 10,000/- shall be paid to the injured Rajesh. *******