Judgment Anil Kumar Sinha, J. 1. The sole appellant, namely, Dasmat Tudu has been convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Trial No. 337 of 1988 by Sri M.P. Tiwary, 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, by his judgment and order, dated 23rd March, 1992 and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. 2. According to the fardbeyan (Exhibit 3) of the informant recorded by S.I.D.K. Murmu of Dalbhumgarh PS. on 20.8.84 at 10 a.m. at Dalbhumgarh Government Hospital, the case of the prosecution is that on 19.8.84, there was some quarrel between the informant and the accused-appellant relating to the ridge intervening between their lands, for which there was a Panchayati and the dispute was resolved. The appellant invited the informant to a feast at his place and on the same day in the evening hours the informant went to the house of the accused to participate in the feast. The people, who had jointed the feast left for their respective homes and then the informant also expressed his desire to go home the accused insisted him to stay for sometime more but the accused did not agree and proceeded for his home. On the way, when the informant reached near the house of Mansha Manjhi, the accused appeared their all of a sudden and assaulted him with a knife on his chest and left side of the abdomen. The informant raised alarm, whereupon, the witnesses, namely, Tota Ram Tudu and Madhav Saran rushed to his rescue and seeing them the accused fled away. Thereafter, the informant was brought to Dalbhumgarh Hospital and on regaining the consciousness the informant gave his fardbeyan (Exhibit 3) to S.I.D.K. Murmu, on the basis of which a formal FIR (Exhibit 4) was drawn up and the police took up the investigation into the matter. The informant was examined at Dalbhumgarh Hospital by Dr. Awadhesh Prasad (PW 4), who had granted injury report (Exhibit 2). After completing the investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet in the case under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, on the basis of which, cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Session. 3. The accused denied the charge and his defence is that he has been falsely implicated due to land dispute. 4. 3. The accused denied the charge and his defence is that he has been falsely implicated due to land dispute. 4. The prosecution has examined in all five witnesses out of which PW 1 is the informant, PW 2 Tota Ram Tudu and PW 3 Madho Soren are the persons said to have arrived at the place of occurrence on having hallah, PW 4 is the Doctor and PW 5 is the formal witness. 5. The learned Court below convicted the appellant in the manner stated above relying upon the evidence of PW 1 (Jogesh Tudu), who is the informant of this case. PW 1 (Jogesh Tudu) fully supported the prosecution version and deposed that a quarrel had taken place in respect of the ridge and a Panchayati also took place to resolve that dispute and the matter was decided. He has then stated that accused Jogesh Tudu invited him to lunch and when the feast was over, he expressed his desire to return back home, whereupon, the accused insisted him to stay for sometime more but he did not stay. He has further deposed that on his way home, when he reached near the house of Mansha Manjhi, accused Dasmat Tudu attacked him with a knife and he received the first blow of knife on his chest and the second blow was given on his left abdomen. He raised alarm on which Madho Soren and Tota Ram Tudu came and the accused fled away. He became unconscious and fell down and when regained his consciousness, he found himself in the hospital, where he was treated for his injuries and the S.I. of Police came on the following day in the hospital to whom he gave his fardbeyan on which he put his signature (Exhibit 1). In his cross-examination, PW 1 has stated that Mukhiya and Sarpanch had also participated in the feast and when he reached at a distance of 50-60 ards from the house of Dasmat Tudu, e attacked upon him and on his alarm the Mukhiya and Sarpanch did not come since they had gone away. In para 10, he has stated that the accused fled away as soon as he saw the witnesses coming and he became unconscious after the arrival of the witnesses, namely, Tota Ram Tudu and Madho Soren. In para 10, he has stated that the accused fled away as soon as he saw the witnesses coming and he became unconscious after the arrival of the witnesses, namely, Tota Ram Tudu and Madho Soren. PW 1 could not say the boundary of the place of occurrence but has stated that there are two and three houses nearby the place of occurrence but nobody came from those houses. There is nothing else in his cross-examination worth comment. It would thus appear that his evidence on the point of assault and manner of occurrence has virtually remained unchallenged. 6. PW 2 Tota Ram Tudu and PW 3 Madho Soren are the witnesses, who arrived immediately at the place of occurrence on hearing the alarm raised by the informant after the assault and both of them have stated that on hearing alarm they rushed towards the informant and seeing them accused Dasmat Tudu fled away and when they reached near the informant, they found that he was having bleeding injury on his chest and abdomen and on being asked he disclosed to them that accused Dasmat Tudu assaulted him with knife and thereafter, the villagers assembled and took the informant to Dalbhumgarh Government Hospital, for his treatment. 7. PW 2 has admitted that he could not catch hold of the accused because he had fled away but he had seen him fleeing away and the sunset had taken place at the time of occurrence. 8. PW 3 has also admitted in his cross-examination that he had not seen the accused assaulting the informant and that is his evidence in the examination-in-chief also that when he reached near the informant, accused had fled away. PW 3 has given the description of the place of occurrence and has stated that he along with Tota Ram Tudu had gone to the hospital and before going to the hospital, he had gone to the police station, but the S.I. of Police advised them to take the injured to the hospital first. He has further admitted that the land dispute was going on between the informant and the accused prior to the alleged occurrence. 9. He has further admitted that the land dispute was going on between the informant and the accused prior to the alleged occurrence. 9. Thus, it would appear from the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 that although they had not seen the accused while inflicting dagger blows on the person of the informant, but immediately after the occurrence they reached near the informant on hearing the alarm raised by him. It also appears from that evidence that they had seen the accused fleeing away from the place of occurrence. It further appears from their evidence that when they reached near the informant, they saw him in the injured condition and on enquiry made by them, the informant disclosed that he has been assaulted by the accused. Therefore, the statement of the informant (PW 1) stands corroborated to the extent that immediately after the occurrence both PW 2 and 3 reached, and saw the accused fleeing away coupled with the fact that they also saw the informant in injured condition having bleeding injuries on his chest and abdomen. 10. PW 4 Dr. Awadhesh Prasad, is the Doctor, who had examined the informant at the hospital. He has deposed that on 21.8.84 at 0.15 a.m. he examined JogeshTudu (informant) and found following injuries on his person : "(i) One sharp cut injury 1-1/4" x 2" deep over the right side of chest. (ii) One sharp cut injury 1" x 1-1/4" deep over the left side of abdomen." PW 4 has deposed that both the injuries were simple in nature caused by sharp pointed weapon and in his opinion, the age of the injury was within six hours. In his cross-examination, PW 4 has admitted that the age of the injury is determined by colour of injury but he had not mentioned the colour of the injury in his report (Exhibit 2). This statement of PW 4, therefore, goes to show that his statement regarding the age of injury is not worth beliefs. Intentionally or unintentionally, the age of the injury mentioned by him appears to be palpably wrong because he examined the injured on 21.8.84 at Q. 15 hours, whereas, the alleged occurrence took place, according to the evidence of PW 1, in the evening of 19.8.84 and the consistent evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 is that soon after the occurrence the informant was rushed to the hospital. So, in all probabilities, the informant was rushed to the hospital on 19.8.84 for his treatment and it appears that instead of 20.8.84, the Doctor has wrongly mentioned the date as 21.8.84. If we reconcile the mistake committed by him in mentioning the date in his injury report, his evidence to the effect that the injury was within six hours would appear to be correct. 11. In such view of the matter, the evidence of PW 4 prove the fact that he had examined the informant in the hospital and treated for the injuries found on his person and those injuries were sharp cut injuries on the chest and abdomen, which is in tune with the prosecution version and the evidence given by PW 1 (Jogesh Tudu). Therefore, the evidence of PW 4 also corroborates the evidence of PW 1 regarding the nature of injuries as also the manner of occurrence. 12. PW 5 is a formal witness, who has proved the fardbeyan (Exhibit 3) and formal FIR (Exhibit 4) and there is nothing worth comment in the testimony. 13. The I.O. of this case has not been examined in this case but the defence has not put forward any suggestion to show that it was prejudiced on account of the non-examination of I.O. in any way. 14. On careful consideration of the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3, I find that their evidence has virtually remained unchallenged and the defence could not elicite anything which may render their version as unworthy of placing credence to. 15. 14. On careful consideration of the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3, I find that their evidence has virtually remained unchallenged and the defence could not elicite anything which may render their version as unworthy of placing credence to. 15. It further appears that prior to the alleged occurrence some quarrel regarding ridge intervening between the land of the informant and the accused had taken place in the morning hours for which there was a Panchayati and the informant was given to understand that the matter has been settled and it is very peculiar that on the pretext of the settlement of the dispute, the accused had also invited the Mukhiya and Sarpanch, and other villagers to join the feast and when the feast was over and when Mukhiya and Sarpanch, and other invites left his place, the accused insisted the informant to stay for sometime more and when the accused did not stay at his request and proceeded for his home and had covered a distance of 40-50 yards, the accused all of a sudden assaulted him with knife on the vital part of his body. So, these circumstances go to show that the accused had planned to accomplish the object with premediation and had assaulted the informant with knife on his vital parts with intention to commit his murder. 16. The dimensions of the injuries found on the person of the informant indicates that the chest injury was 2" deep, whereas, injury found on the abdomen was 1-1/4" deep. So, the nature of injury and the weapon used makes it further clear that the accused had the intention to commit the murder of the informant and that is why he had chosen to assault him on his vital parts such as chest and abdomen and had given severe blow of knife which ordinarily could have proved the fatal and it was just a chance that due to the timely arrival of the witnesses at the place of occurrence, as also the fact that the informant was immediately removed to the hospital where he received medical assistance that he survived luckily. 17. 17. On the basis of the materials available on the record and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the prosecution had fully established the charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant and the learned Court below was fully justified in convicting the appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code on appraisal of evidence on record. 18. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted before me that there is no previous criminal history of the appellant and this case is of the year 1984 and the accused-appellant should be released on execution of bond under the provision of the Probation of Offenders Act. In my view, the submission advanced by the learned Counsel does not appear to be acceptable because the evidence, the facts and circumstances of the case disclose that the appellant had really intended to do away with the life of the informant by inflicting dagger blow on his chest and abdomen and even if there is no criminal history of the appellant, such an offender should not go scot free and does not deserve the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. The learned Court below has already taken a very lenient view by awarding sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment. Hence, the sentence awarded by him does not require any interference. 19. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the discussion made above, I hold that the prosecution had proved the charge under Section 307, IPC against the appellant and the learned Court below was justified in holding the appellant guilty of the said offence. Accordingly, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Court below are upheld. 20. The appellant, who is on bail, is directed to surrender before the learned Court below to serve out the remaining sentence awarded to him by the learned Court below and the Court below is directed to take necessary steps for surrender/arrest of the appellant. 21. In the result, I find no merit in this appeal which stands dismissed.