JUDGMENT 1. - The above-named accused appellant has preferred this jail appeal against the judgment and order dated 22.4.1999 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi by which he acquitted the accused appellant of the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the 'SC/ST Act), but convicted him under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months R.l. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are as follows:- On 17.4.1994 at about 9.35 PM, PW 15 Padma Ram gave a Parcha-bayan Ex. P/12 to PW 17 Bhanwar Singh, SHO, Pindwara stating that at about 8.30 PM on 17.4.1994 he, PW 16 Ganesh and PW 13 Maknaram reached at the Bus Stand, Jhadoli, where Tempo RJ 27/2313 dashed against the cycle of PW 16 Ganesh. It was further stated by him that after this accident, PW 15 Padma Ram, PW 13 Maknaram and PW 16 Ganesh caught hold of the driver of that Tempo and when the driver of that Tempo cried, accused appellant came there and he gave knife blows on the scapular region and one left side of the stomach of PW 15 Padma Ram with an intention to kill him and he also caused injuries to PW 16 Ganesh by the same knife. Had PW 13 Maknaram not intervened in the matter, accused appellant would have killed both of them. On this Parcha-bayan Ex. P/12, PW 17 Bhanwar Singh registered regular FIR No. 71/94 Ex. P/20 and started investigation. PW 15 Padma Ram was got medically examined by PW 8 Dr. R. Loonkar and his injury report is Ex. P/11. Similarly, PW 16 Ganesh was also got medically examined by the same doctor and his injury report is Ex. P/13 and X-ray reports of both of them are Ex. P/7 and Ex. P/8 respectively. After usual investigation the police submitted a challan against the accused appellant for committing offence under Section 307 IPC and 3(2) (v) of the SC/ST Act. Thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 28.11.1997 framed charges under Section 307 IPC and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act against the accused appellant, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. P/8 respectively. After usual investigation the police submitted a challan against the accused appellant for committing offence under Section 307 IPC and 3(2) (v) of the SC/ST Act. Thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 28.11.1997 framed charges under Section 307 IPC and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act against the accused appellant, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses and got exhibited 20 documents. Thereafter, statement of accused appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded No defence evidence was led. After recording evidence and conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge vide his judgment and order dated 22.4.1999 acquitted the accused appellant of the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, but convicted him under Section 307 IPC and sentenced in the manner as stated above, holding inter-alia that accused appellant attempted to commit culpable homicide amounting to murder punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. by causing injuries to PW 15 Padma Ram and PW 16 Ganesh by Knife. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 22.4.1999 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the accused appellant has preferred this jail appeal. 3. In this appeal, this Court vide order dated 21.12.1999 appointed Shri S. Rathore as Amicus Curiae, who has argued on behalf of the accused appellant. His main arguments are:- 1. That in the present case, murderous intent is missing and whole incident took place on the spur of moment and there is no intention on the part of the accused appellant to commit murder of both PW 15 Padma Ram and PW 16 Ganesh and thus, conviction of the accused appellant under Section 307 IPC is wrong and should be set aside. 2. That if the Court comes to the conclusion that accused appellant has committed the offence under Section 307 IPC, lenient view be taken in awarding sentence. 4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the case. 6. Before proceeding further, I would like to discuss the medical evidence of the present case. 7. To prove the injury reports of both the injured persons, the prosecution has produced PW 8 Dr. R. Loonkar. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the case. 6. Before proceeding further, I would like to discuss the medical evidence of the present case. 7. To prove the injury reports of both the injured persons, the prosecution has produced PW 8 Dr. R. Loonkar. He states that on 17.4.1994 he examined PW 15 Padma Ram and found the following injuries on his persons and proved his injury report Ex. P/11. 1. Incised wound 3 cmx1 cm spindle shape on lower left part of chest. 2. Incised wound 3 cmx1 cm spindle shape on Rt. scapular region by sharp edged weapon. 3. Incised wound 3 cm. x1 cm spindle shape on Rt. Cluteal region. Muscle deep Simple by sharp edged weapon.He has further stated that on the same day, he has also examined PW 16 Ganesh and found the following injuries and proved his injury report Ex. P/13: 1. Incised wound 2 cmxl cm spindle shape on left side of chest, by sharp edged weapon. 2. Incised wound 2 cmxl cm spindle shape on left side of back by sharp edged weapon. He has further stated that after seeing the opinion of the Surgeon on Ex. P/7, he has opined that injury No. 1 of PW 15 Padma Ram was dangerous to life. 8. The prosecution has also produced PW 10 Dr. Bhupesh Kumar, who was surgeon and he has stated in his statement that on 18.4.1994, he operated PW 15 Padma Ram and found that : "There was 4 cm long sharp cut eliptical in shape wound on anterior wall of stomach extending from lesser near curvature near antrum. There was 5 cmx3 cm eliptical wound on greater omentum. There was 3 cmx 1.5 cm sharp wound on distal third of transverse colon. All wounds were closed in two layers with the help of c.c.g. 1/0 uterus and abdomen was closed in layers after achieving proper haemostasis. Injury No. 1 in the injury report Ex. P/11 is dangerous to life while injury No 2 is simple." 9. From the statements of PW 8 Dr. R. Loonkar, it appears that PW 15 Padma Ram received three incised wounds; one on left part of chest; second on right scapular region; and third on cluteal region. From the statement of PW 10 Dr. P/11 is dangerous to life while injury No 2 is simple." 9. From the statements of PW 8 Dr. R. Loonkar, it appears that PW 15 Padma Ram received three incised wounds; one on left part of chest; second on right scapular region; and third on cluteal region. From the statement of PW 10 Dr. Bhupesh Kumar, it further appears that PW 15 Padma Ram was operated and it was found that there was 4 cm long sharp cut eliptical in shape wound on anterior wall of stomach and 5 cmx8 cm eliptical wound on greater omentum. PW 10 Dr. Bhupesh Kumar has also opined that injury No. 1 was dangerous to life. 10. Therefore, it can be said that PW 15 Padma Ram received three incised wounds on his body, while PW 16 Ganesh received two incised wounds on his body and these injuries were o:i their vital parts. 11. The next question to be considered is whether these injuries on the body of PW 15 Padma Ram and PW 16 Ganesh have been caused by accused appellant or not. 12. From the Parcha-bayan Ex. P/12, it appears that apart form both injured PW 15 Padma Ram and PW 16 Ganesh, PW 13 Maknaram was also present at the place of occurrence. PW 15 Padma Ram in his statement has clearly stated that accused appellant first attacked PW 16 Ganesh and when he intervened, accused appellant gave knife blows to him and caused three incised wounds on his body, as mentioned in the injury report Ex. P/11. This witness has been cross examined and nothing has come from his cross-examination which creates doubts on his testimony, but on the contrary, his statement is fully corroborated by the statements of by PW 16 Ganesh and PW 13 Maknaram. The medical evidence also corroborates to the statements of PW 15 Padma Ram and PW 16 Ganesh, both injured persons in this case. 13. Thus, it is amply proved by the prosecution that both injured persons PW 15 Padma Ram and PW 16 Ganesh received injuries on their persons at the hands of the accused appellant by knife. 14. The next question to be considered is whether by causing these injuries on the persons of PW 15 Padma Ram and PW 16 Ganesh, the accused appellant has committed the offence under Section 307 IPC or not. 15. 14. The next question to be considered is whether by causing these injuries on the persons of PW 15 Padma Ram and PW 16 Ganesh, the accused appellant has committed the offence under Section 307 IPC or not. 15. To prove the charge for the offence under Section 307 IPC, the prosecution has to prove:- 1. That the accused did an act. 2. That it was done- (i) with the intention, or (ii) with the knowledge; (a) of causing death; (b) of causing such bodily injury as the accused knew to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm was attempted to be caused; or (c) of causing bodily injury to a person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted would have been sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; or (d) that the act if completed would have been so imminently dangerous that it would have in all probability caused death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; and the act attempted was committed without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid. 16. Apart from this, to justify a conviction under Section 306 IPC, it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually caused may death should have been inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often given considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances, and may even, in soma cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds. The section makes a distinction between an act of the accused and its result, if any. It is also not necessary that injury actually caused to the victim of the assault should be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the person assaulted. What the Court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in this section. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. 17. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. 17. In the present case, the accused appellant has given three blows by Knife on the person of PW 15 Padma Ram and looking to their size and looking to the fact that he was operated, the intention on the part of, the accused appellant can easily be gathered that he intended to commit murder of PW 15 Padma Ram. Had there been only single act, the position would have been different. Similarly, he also attempted twice with sharp edged weapon i.e. knife and caused injuries to PW 16 Ganesh also. 18. Thus, in the above circumstances, the act of the appellant can be said to be an attempt on his part to commit the murder of PW 15 Padma Ram and PW 16 Ganesh. In these circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the accused appellant under Section 307 IPC and his findings in this regard are liable to be confirmed. Hence, the arguments that since the dispute arose on the spur of moment, therefore, no intention should be gathered on the part of the accused appellant to commit murder of PW 15 Padma Ram and PW 16 Ganesh, is not appreciable, in view of the simple reason that accused appellant gave three blows by Knife on the person of PW 15 Padma Ram and two blows by Knife on the persons of PW 16 Ganesh. 19. So far as the arguments that lenient view be taken in awarding sentence to the accused appellant is concerned, in my opinion, for the injuries of two persons PW 15 Padma Ram and PW 16 Ganesh, Punishment of three years is not severe and this Court would not like to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Sessions Judge in awarding the sentence to the accused appellant. 20. For the reasons stated above, this jail appeal of the accused appellant is liable to be dismissed and the findings of the learned Sessions Judge convicting the accused appellant under Section 307 IPC are liable to be confirmed.Accordingly, the jail appeal filed by the accused appellant is dismissed, after confirming the judgment and order dated 22.4.1999 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi.Jail appeal dismissed. *******