JUDGMENT S.K. Kulshrestha, J. The accused has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 30-1-1989 of the learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, in Sessions Trial No. 135 of 1986, by which he has been convicted of an offence u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. The accused was tried for the said offence on the allegation that a month before the incident dated 22-3-1986, the accused had complained to the complainant that his brother Naresh had become quite supercilious and had pushed him, but the complainant Shivkumar had pacified him by explaining that, may be, while passing he had received the said push. On the date of the incident at about 9.00 A.M. while Shivkumar (P.W.1) with his brother Naresh Kumar (P.W.4) had gone to the village pond for bathing, Shivkumr was noticed brushing his teeth and while the brother of the complainant was bathing and the complainant bent down to wash his face, the accused came from behind and gave a blow of sickle on his neck and ran away. The complainant shouted for help and Naresh Kumar and others rushed to the place of incident. The complainant was taken to the police station where F.I.R. Ex. P-1 was lodged by him. He was immediately sent to the hospital under requisition Ex. P-8A for medical examination. Dr. Vinod Kumar Pandey (P.W.3) then examined the injuries of the complainant and recorded the same in his report Ex. P-8. In further sequel of investigation, after recording the F.I.R. the Station House Officer B.C. Jain (P.W.6) took samples of blood-stained and plain earth vide seizure memo Ex. P-4, seized from the spot the weapon of offence "Sickle" under seizure memo Ex. P-5, seized the shirt of the complainant and his Lungi having blood stains under seizure memo Ex. P-2, seized the clothes of the accused vide Ex. P-6 and also seized his Lungi and a pair of Chappals from the spot vide Ex. P-7. The weapon of offence was sent to the doctor for his opinion which was received vide Ex. P-9. The clothes of the accused had been seized at his instance after recording the information furnished by him vide Ex. P-3. After preparation of the spot map Ex. P-11 and forwarding the seized articles to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination under memo Ex. P-12, receiving the report Ex. P-9. The clothes of the accused had been seized at his instance after recording the information furnished by him vide Ex. P-3. After preparation of the spot map Ex. P-11 and forwarding the seized articles to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination under memo Ex. P-12, receiving the report Ex. P-13 of the Chemical Examiner of the F.S.L. and recording the statements of witnesses, the accused was prosecuted. The accused denied the charge and stated before the trial Court that he had been falsely implicated by the police. In the alternative, he also raised a plea of unsoundness of mind and examined in his defence Dr. Prakash Narain Shukla, Psychiatrist, and exhibited the certificate given by him as Ex. D-3. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, found the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced him as stated above. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the complainant could not have seen the assailant as admittedly the blow was struck from behind while he had bent down to wash his face and the evidence of other witnesses could not be believed as they were at a distance and their attention was attracted only when the complainant had raised an alarm. The learned counsel has, therefore, submitted that from the evidence of the prosecution, it was not established that the appellant was the perpetrator of the offence in question and his conviction was, therefore, unsustainable. Learned counsel has also argued that in view of the testimony of Dr. Prakash Narain Shukla (D.W.1), even assuming the prosecution version to be true, the accused could not be convicted as he was incapable of knowing the nature of his act on account of unsoundness of mind. The learned counsel has further submitted that even assuming that an offence is made out, it would not travel beyond an offence u/s 324, Indian Penal Code in view of the fact that only a single blow was struck by the accused even as per prosecution, and has urged that for the said offence, the appellant deserves to be let off on the imprisonment of 2 1/2 months already undergone by him as under-trial prisoner and during this appeal. Learned counsel for the State has, on the other hand, submitted that the eye-witness account rendered through the complainant and the prosecution witnesses leaves no doubt that the accused was the person who had caused that injury by means of a sickle on the vital part of the body of the complainant, in the circumstances that if the complainant had died he would have been guilty of the offence of murder punishable u/s 302, Indian Penal Code and there was no evidence even to remotely suggest that the accused was suffering from any unsoundness of mind at the time of the incident to be incapable of knowing the nature of his act. The learned counsel for the State has, therefore, supported the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant. In the present case, it is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the complainant Shivkumar had received the injury as found on him by Dr. Vinod Kumar Pandey (P.W.3), the Assistant Surgeon. As per the evidence of Dr. Vinod Kumar Pandey and the certificate Ex. P-8 issued by him, the complainant had sustained an incised wound 3 1/2" x 1" x 3/4" situated just anterior to left ear extending from mastoid process to zygomatic process of maxila. The wound was muscle deep. Active bleedings were present and muscles were cut. The injury had tenderness with swelling. In the opinion of the doctor, the injury was grievous in nature and caused by sharp cutting object. The question is whether the accused was the author of the said injury. The complainant Shivkumar (P.W.1), in his deposition, has referred to the quarrel with regard to the accused having been pushed by the brother of the complainant a month ago and has stated that on 22-3-1986, while he had gone with his brother to the village pond, he had noticed the accused brushing his teeth. While his brother Naresh Kumar was bathing about 50 ft. away from the place where he had gone to gargle after brushing his teeth, the accused had come with sickle in his hand and had struck him a blow with the sickle below his left ear and ran away. His brother Naresh Kumar and his friends Roshan, Ratan, Tejram and Chandra Kumar had then rushed to the place and had taken him to the hospital. He has deposed that he had lodged the report Ex. His brother Naresh Kumar and his friends Roshan, Ratan, Tejram and Chandra Kumar had then rushed to the place and had taken him to the hospital. He has deposed that he had lodged the report Ex. P-1 at the police station and his shirt and Lungi had been seized by the police while he was in the hospital. Roshanlal (P.W.2) fully corroborates the the testimony of Shivkumar (P.W.1). In his cross-examination, he has categorically asserted that since he had himself seen the assailant, he had no occasion to enquire from the complainant Shivkumar as to who his assailant was. Tejram (P.W.5) also corroborates the testimony of the complainant and Roshanlal (P.W.2), although his statement that the accused had caught hold of the hair of the complainant before striking the blow with the sickle, does not find place in the statement given by him to the police or in the statement of the complainant and witness Roshanlal. Naresh Kumar (P.W.4), brother of the complainant, has although admitted that he had himself not witnessed the accused striking the blow on his brother, but when his attention was drawn, he had clearly seen the accused running away immediately thereafter. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that from the evidence of the complainant Shivkumar, it is clear that the report had been recorded in the hospital and not at the police station. The evidence of the complainant cannot, therefore, be relied upon as the whole story was an afterthought to falsely implicate the appellant. The argument does not impress me for the simple reason that nothing has been shown to indicate any animus of Shivkumar or other witnesses towards the accused to falsely implicate him. The evidence of complainant is duly corroborated by medical evidence and even assuming that the report had not been lodged at the police station but recorded by the police in the hospital, it was immediately after the incident. The nature of the injury and the critical condition of the complainant also rules out that the report had been made after any deliberations. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is natural and untainted and the minor discrepancies do not affect their version with regard to the accused being the assailant who had caused injury to the complainant. The accused had also raised the defence of unsoundness of mind before the trial Court. The evidence of Dr. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is natural and untainted and the minor discrepancies do not affect their version with regard to the accused being the assailant who had caused injury to the complainant. The accused had also raised the defence of unsoundness of mind before the trial Court. The evidence of Dr. Prakash Narain Shukla (D.W.1) is with reference to his examination and certificate Ex.D-3 issued by him. From Ex.D-3, it is clear that the accused was examined by him on 29-7-1987 while the incident is dated 22-3-1986. The accused, according to this witness, was under treatment for schizophrenia and the evidence suggests that such persons get enraged and become violent on minor matters affecting their discretion about their acts. In order to succeed on a plea of unsoundness of mind, it is necessary to show that the person accused of an offence was incapable of knowing the nature of his act at the time of commission thereof. Nothing has been shown to indicate that as on the date of the offence and at the time of its commission, the accused was suffering from any unsoundness of mind and was incapable on that account of knowing the nature of his act. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has also duly noted in his judgment that throughout during the trial, the accused was behaving like a normal person. The fact that the accused had no provocation at the time or in near proximity of the incident and the accused acted in a calculated manner, rules out that he was suffering from any unsoundness of mind at the time he committed the said offence. The accused had immediately run away after striking the blow which shows that the accused knew that what he had done, was wrong and contrary to law and his fleeing from the place of occurrence was with a view to escape the consequences thereof. The accused has, thus, failed to substantiate the plea. Indeed, overwhelming evidence to show that he knew the nature of his act, is available on record. Learned counsel has next contended that the act of the accused would, at the most, make out an offence u/s 324 of the Indian Penal Code as only a single blow was struck by the accused and in support of this contention, the learned counsel has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Vs. Learned counsel has next contended that the act of the accused would, at the most, make out an offence u/s 324 of the Indian Penal Code as only a single blow was struck by the accused and in support of this contention, the learned counsel has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Vs. State of U.P., . In the said case, their Lordships had made it clear that they did not propose to decide it as a matter of law that in case of single blow, offence would fall u/s 324, Indian Penal Code. The observations contained in paragraph 3 of the judgment read as extracted hereunder: "3. The learned counsel for appellant has assailed the finding recorded by the High Court and the trial Judge and has urged that the appellant was implicated due to enmity. He urged that even though the High Court held that in the FIR the main part was specifically assigned to the appellant and one Jagat Singh but in the evidence it was confined to the appellant as the relations between the two were strained. The learned counsel further urged that the case of the prosecution that the complainant was bitten by Jagat Singh and there being no injury of bitting, the High Court committed an error in maintaining the conviction. We are not impressed by the argument. The learned counsel then urged that the High Court committed an error in convicting the appellant u/s 307, Penal Code. We do not propose to decide it as a matter of law. But we agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that in peculiar circumstances of the case it being a case of single injury in the back of neck the conviction can be altered to be u/s 324, Penal Code." In the instant case, the nature of the injury, the weapon used and the part of the body viz., neck on which the injury was inflicted, clearly spell out the intention of the accused. The sickle with which the injury had been caused, had also been forwarded for examination to the doctor and as per the opinion of the doctor the injury was dangerous to life. The sickle with which the injury had been caused, had also been forwarded for examination to the doctor and as per the opinion of the doctor the injury was dangerous to life. It is, therefore, clear that the injury which the appellant had inflicted, was of the nature that if the complainant had died, the appellant would have been guilty for murder u/s 302, Indian Penal Code. The act of the appellant fully makes out an offence punishable u/s 307, Indian Penal Code. The case relied upon by the learned counsel is clearly distinguishable on facts. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged for clemency in sentence on the ground that the accused has already suffered incarceration for a period of 2 1/2 months and suffered agony of the trial and during the pendency of the appeal and he should, therefore, not be sent back to jail and suitable fine may be imposed. It is clear that the accused had assaulted the complainant with determination to cause an injury on vital part and had in fact caused a serious injury. Thus, merely on account of passage of time, the accused does not deserve to be let off on the imprisonment of 2 1/2 months undergone by him. At the same time, in my considered view, very severe sentence at this distance of time is not called for and sentence of 5 years' R.I. awarded to him by the trial Court deserves to be reduced to 2 years' R.I. and fine. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the appellant for offence u/s 307. Indian Penal Code the sentence of R.I. for 5 years' awarded to him by the trial Court is reduced to 2 years' R.I. and fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo further R.I. for 3 months. The accused shall be entitled to set off u/s 428, Criminal Procedure Code. The accused shall surrender to his bail bonds to serve out the remaining sentence. Final Result : Allowed