JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 8.12.81 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur convicting the appellant for offence under Section 307 I.P.C. sentencing him to 2 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment, to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. Further convicted under Section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced to six months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment, to further undergo 15 days S.I. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 20.8.81 one Smt. Sheela lodged a F.I.R. Ex.P/2 at Police Station, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur, stating interalia that her husband is serving in Airforce and they are residing in quarter No. 3. In front of their quarter, there is quarter No. 2 occupied by Videshi Ram. At about 2 PM. while her daughter Manju was drying sari, a drop of water fell on the wife of Videshi Ram, on which she stated abusing and went inside the quarter. After some time her son Vikram with his friend Rajendra came out and started abusing them. Her son also came out of the quarter and asked them as why they were abusing. On this Viikram went inside the house and came out with a sword and attacked his son, causing injuries on various part of the body including head. Rajendra also caused injuries when Mst. Manju intervened. On this information Police registered a case for offence under Sections 307, 324, 504 & 34 I.P.C. After usual investigation Police filed challan against the appellant and Rajendra Kumar for the said offences. 3. During the trial prosecution examined 13 witnesses and produced certain documents. On analysing the evidence, learned Judge found the appellant guilty of offence under section 307 and 324 I.P.C. Learned Judge however acquitted the accused Rajendra Kumar. Assailing the judgment Mr. J.R. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that none of the injuries either to Raja Babu PW/13 or Sheela PW/10 or Miss Manju PW/11 are grievous in nature. It is also submitted that the witnesses have exaggerated the incident. The fact of causing injuries has not been proved during the trial. Thus, the submission of Mr. J.R. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that none of the injuries either to Raja Babu PW/13 or Sheela PW/10 or Miss Manju PW/11 are grievous in nature. It is also submitted that the witnesses have exaggerated the incident. The fact of causing injuries has not been proved during the trial. Thus, the submission of Mr. Choudhary is that the conviction of the appellant under section 307 is not sustainable and in any case, offence against the appellant does not travel beyond Section 324 or 308 I.P.C. On the other hand Mr. Panney Singh, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor contendh that the accused Vikram Kumar had repeatedly given blow with a weapon like sword on the person of Raja Babu. He further submits that one of the injury is on the vital part of the body i.e. head. Thus the submission of Mr. Panney Singh is that the appellant has been rightly convicted under section 307 I.P.C. and no interference is called for in appeal. 4. I have considered the rival contentions and also perused the record. For offence under section 307 I.P.C., court has to see whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the act attributed to the accused. Further whether the act attributed to accused was done with intention or knowledge to commit murder. The intention or knowledge is to be gathered from all circumstances and not merely from consequences which ensue. The nautre of the weapon used, manner in which it was used, motive for the crime, severity of the blow, the part of the body where the injury was inflicted, are some of the factors that they may be taken into consideration to determine the intention.In the instant case all the three injured witnesses namely P.W. 10 Smt. Sheela, P.W. 11 Miss Manju, . P.W. 13 Raja Babu are consistent in their statement that appellant Vikram came out of the quarter with sword and he inflicted injuries to them. This find corroboration from the F.I.R., lodged promptly and the medical evidence. The learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Choudhary in all fairness has not challenged the finding of the trial court in this regard. P.W. 13 Raja Babu are consistent in their statement that appellant Vikram came out of the quarter with sword and he inflicted injuries to them. This find corroboration from the F.I.R., lodged promptly and the medical evidence. The learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Choudhary in all fairness has not challenged the finding of the trial court in this regard. Entire thrust of his contention is that admittedly all the injuries are simple in nature caused by sharp edged weapon as such offence does not travel beyond Section 324 I.P.C. It is submitted that injury No. 6 was admittedly not referred for X -Ray, as such there is no evidence to show that the said injury is grivous in nature. I am in agreement with the submission of Mr. Choudhary, so far as injury No. 6 is concern. The learned Judge was apparently in error in considering the injury No. 6, as grivous. P.W. 13 Raja Babu was examined by P.W. 1 Dr. L.N. Agarwal. He has proved the injury report Ex.1 as follows 1. Incised wound 10 cm x l & 1/2cm. 1/2 cm. in right palm. 2. Incised wound 1 cmxl cm. each on left index middle ring and little finger. 3. Incised wound 1 cm. x 1/4 cm. on right forearm. 4. Incised wound 1 &1/2 cm. x 1 cm. x 1/2 cm. on right index finger. 5. Incised wound 12 cm.x1/4 cm. on right shoulder. 6. Incised wound 10 cm.x2 cm. bone deep right side of the head parietal region. All the injuries are simple in nature. P.W. 10 Smt. Sheela and P.W. 11 Miss Manju were examined by Dr. P Dyal P.W. 8. He has proved injury report Ex.P 9 and Ex.P. 10 respectively. Ex.P 9 shows following injuries on the person of Mst. Sheela, as follows- "1. stitched wound 2 cm. on distant Pholanyx of Rt index finger 2.2 cm. on the middel pholanyx of Rt. Middle finger. 2 cm. on the middle pholanyx of right ring finger. 2. Incised wound 2x0.2 skin deep on the posterior aspect of left thumb." Ex. 10 shows following injuries on the person of Miss Manju as follows 1. "Incised wound-8x0.1 cm. on posteromedial aspect of left Forearm in the middle third failing as abrasion. (Transverse for 7 cms. (total 8 cm.)" All the injuries except injury No. 6, refer to above are on palm or fingers. 10 shows following injuries on the person of Miss Manju as follows 1. "Incised wound-8x0.1 cm. on posteromedial aspect of left Forearm in the middle third failing as abrasion. (Transverse for 7 cms. (total 8 cm.)" All the injuries except injury No. 6, refer to above are on palm or fingers. They are simple in nature. Injury No. 6 is of course on ' head, a vital part of the body, but it is simple in nature. Weapon used is of course sword, but the incident has taken place at the spur of the moment. If appellant would have Intended to cause murder, there would not have been difficulty in causing more serious injuries. Thus, the circumstances emerging from the prosecution evidence is not sufficient to hold that appellant caused injuries with intention to commit murder. However, the fact that he attacked with dangerous weapon like sword, leads to the conclusion that he had knowledge that the act done may cause death. Thus in case the injured would have died because of the act of the appellant, it would not have been a case of murder punishable under section 302 I.P.C., but a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under section 304(11) I.P.C. Thus it is a case of attmept to culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under section 308 I.P.C. In view of this the conviction of appellant Vikram deserves to be convered from Section 307 I.P.C. to 308 I.P.C. From the analysis of evidence it is proved that appellant caused simple injuries by sharp edged weapon to P.W. 10 Ms. Sheela and P.W./11 Miss. Manju as well. Occular testimoney of the said witnesses is supported by medical evidence. Thus the conviction of the appellant under section 324 I.P.C. is upheld. 5. On the question of sentence, it is submitted by Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant that at the time of incident the accused was of 18 years of age and now he has settled in his life and it will not be appropriate to disturb his life after so many years. On the other hand, Mr. Panney Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that no leniency is called for in the facts of the case. He further submits that in any case compensation should be awarded to the injuried. 6. The appellant is not a previous convict. On the other hand, Mr. Panney Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that no leniency is called for in the facts of the case. He further submits that in any case compensation should be awarded to the injuried. 6. The appellant is not a previous convict. He does not have criminal record, the incident took place at the spur of moment, among neighbours. Offence under section 308 I.P.C. is not punishable beyond 7 years, as such provisions of 360 Cr.PC. are attracted. There are no special reasons to decline benefit of Section 360 Cr.PC. Thus in my view it is a fit case, for granting benefit of Section 360 Cr.PC. 7. Consequently the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant for offence under section 307 I.P.C. is set-aside. The appellant is convicted for offence under section 308 I.P.C. Conviction under section 324 I.P.C. is maintained. However, instead of sentencing him, it is directed that the appellant Vikram Kumar shall be released on probation on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 5000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court undertaking to appear to receive the sentence as and when called upon to do so and to keep peace and be good behaviour during the period of one year. The appellant is granted four weeks time to furnish the bonds.The appellant will also deposit a sum of Rs. 2000/- as compensation to be payable to the injured Raja Babu, for which six weeks time is granted, failing which the order of granting benefit of probation shall stand vacated and he will undergo a sentence of one year R.I. and fine of Rs. 500 in default of payment to undergo 2 months S.I. for offence under section 308 I.P.C. and the sentence awarded for offence under section 324 I.P.C. and shall remain intact. On furnishing the fresh bonds as directed, the bail bonds furnished during the pendency of the appeal shall stand discharged.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******