JUDGMENT S.P. Khare, J. 1. Appellant Bhalrius Minj has been convicted under Section 307, IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to a fine of Rs. 200/-. 2. The prosecution case was that there was some land dispute between the accused and Simon Tigga. On 12-4-1994 at about 9 P.M. Simon Tigga was returning to his own house in village Magarhar from the house of his younger brother Joykim Tigga (P.W. 1) after taking dinner with him. They were walking together. The accused came there, caught hold of Simon Tigga and made him to fall on the ground. The accused caused several injuries to Simon Tigga with a lathi. There were in all nine injuries including four lacerated wounds on the head. The lathi was broken into two pieces. Joykim Tigga (P.W. 1) lodged the report Ex. P-1 at Balarampur Police Station on 13-4-1994 at 5 P.M. Simon Tigga was examined by Dr. S.P. Vaish (P.W. 18) and admitted in Balrampur hospital. He was showing abnormal behaviour on account of head injuries. He ran away from the indoor ward of the hospital on 29-4-1994 and his bones were found in the forest. He is dead. 3. The accused pleaded not guilty. The trial Court after appreciation of the evidence on record held the accused guilty for the aforesaid offence. 4. In this appeal it has been argued that there is no definite proof that the appellant( caused injuries to Simon Tigga and the offence, if any, is covered by Section 323 and not Section 307, IPC. 5. The evidence on record has been scanned by this Court. Joykim Tigga (P.W. 1) has deposed that he was going with his brother Simon Tigga and his wife Beronika (P.W. 6) in the night. Accused Bhalrius Minj came there and started belabouring Simon Tigga with a lathi. He sustained head injuries. The skull was broken. There was bleeding from the head injuries and the car. His clothes were soaked in blood. He lodged the FIR Ex. P-1. Simon Tigga remained in the hospital for about 16 days. He had become insane due to the head injuries and he was not able to recognise anyone. He ran away from the hospital and after a few days the bones of his dead body were recovered. Beronika (P.W. 6) is wife of Simon Tigga. He lodged the FIR Ex. P-1. Simon Tigga remained in the hospital for about 16 days. He had become insane due to the head injuries and he was not able to recognise anyone. He ran away from the hospital and after a few days the bones of his dead body were recovered. Beronika (P.W. 6) is wife of Simon Tigga. She was deposed that she was with her husband when the incident took place. She has corroborated the testimony of Joykim Tigga (P.W. 1). 6. Laldeo (P.W. 2) was named as the person who had seen the incident. But he has not supported the prosecution case. He has been declared hostile. 7. Dr. S.P. Vaish (P.W. 18) has deposed that he had examined Simon Tigga on 13-4-1994 at 5.50 A.M. and found nine injuries on his body as per his report Ex. P-25. There were four lacerated wounds on his scalp. There were symptoms of head injury. He gave the opinion "Head injury is grievous and may cause death". On 28-4-1994 as per Ex. P-26 he informed the police that the "patient is mentally upset as a result of sustained head injury. Patient is having abnormal behaviour and disorientation". The bed-head ticket is Ex. P-24. 8. The testimony of the two eye witnesses is fully reliable. That is corroborated by prompt FIR Ex. P-25 and the medical evidence. It is proved that the appellant caused nine injuries to Simon Tigga out of which four were lacerated wounds on his head. He remained in the hospital for about 16 days. He became insane on account of the head injuries, ran away from the hospital and died. 9. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that there was no X-ray of the skull of Simon Tigga and therefore it cannot be said that there was fracture. The doctor has explained that there was no X-ray machine in the hospital in which Simon Tigga remained admitted and he was not sent to the district hospital as he was unconscious. However, from the injury report Ex. P-25 it can be gleaned that the head injuries were of serious nature. 10. The doctor has explained that there was no X-ray machine in the hospital in which Simon Tigga remained admitted and he was not sent to the district hospital as he was unconscious. However, from the injury report Ex. P-25 it can be gleaned that the head injuries were of serious nature. 10. Relying upon Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar, Jainarain v. State of Bihar and Pashora Singh v. State of Punjab it has been argued on behalf of the appellant that there was no attempt to commit murder of Simon Tigga as his intention was not to cause his death but at the most it was to cause simple hurt. It is difficult to agree with this plea. Intention inhers in the mind of the person who causes the injuries. It has to be ascertained objectively what was his intention. Four lacerated wounds on the head and five other injuries clearly indicate that the accused dealt repeated lathi blows on the victim after his fall on the ground. The motive was the land dispute. The victim had become unconscious. He was in the hospital for 16 days. He became insane. It means there was damage to his brain. The lathi with which the injuries were caused broke into two pieces. How can the appellant be heard to say that he intended to cause simple hurt only. A man must be imputed with the natural consequences of his act. The appellant by his illegal act rendered the victim insane which ultimately resulted in loss of his life. On an objective appraisal it must be held that the appellant attempted to cause death of Simon Tigga. 11. What constitutes "attempt" is a mixed question of law and fact, depending largely on the circumstances of the particular case. "Attempt" defies a precise and exact definition. It has been held by the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Balram that to justify a conviction under Section 307 Indian Penal Code, it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often give 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 some cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often give 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 some cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds. It is not necessary that the 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 the 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. It was held that the High Court was not correct in acquitting the accused of the charge under Section 307, IPC, merely because the injuries inflicted were in the nature of simple hurt. 12. Under Section 307, IPC the intention precedes the act attributed to the accused. Therefore, the intention is to be gathered from all circumstances and not merely from the consequences, that ensue. The nature of the weapon used, manner in which it is used, motive for the crime, severity of the blow and part of the body where the injury is inflicted are some of the factors that may be taken into consideration to determine the intention. In Antony v. State of Kerala, the victim raised his right arm to ward off the blow, which, on falling, instantaneously severed his hand. It was held by the Supreme Court that the severity of the blow speaks for itself. The damage done has its own story to tell. Had the hand not been raised in a bid to defend, the aim was the head of the victim. The blow, thus, aimed would have clearly spelled out the murderous intent of the appellant. The offence fell under Section 307 and not under Section 326, IPC. 13. The ratio of the decision in Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1965 SC 843 , is that the mere fact that the injury actually inflicted by the appellant did not cut any vital organ of the victim is not by itself sufficient to take the act out of the purview of Section 307, IPC. 13. The ratio of the decision in Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1965 SC 843 , is that the mere fact that the injury actually inflicted by the appellant did not cut any vital organ of the victim is not by itself sufficient to take the act out of the purview of Section 307, IPC. On the facts of that case it was held that the evidence was not sufficient to establish with certainty existence of the requisite intention or knowledge of the accused and therefore he was convicted under Section 324, IPC only. In that case no motive or enmity was proved. In the present case, as already stated there was motive and that was the litigation relating to land dispute. Similarly Jainarain v. State of Bihar and Pashora Singh v. State of Punjab were rendered on their own facts. The principle of law is the same as laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Balram. 14. In the present case, as discussed in Para 10 above, the appellant intended to cause the death of Simon Tigga by inflicting repeated blows on his head causing four lacerated wounds resulting in damage to the brain. The appellant could not foresee that the victim would run away from the hospital and meet his death but he could definitely anticipate what would be the effect of the repeated lathi blows on his head after his fall on the ground. The blows were inflicted with sufficient severity as the lathi broke into two pieces and the brain was damaged. That speaks of his requisite intention or knowledge. 15. The conviction under Section 307, IPC is unassailable. The sentence, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be excessive. The appeal is dismissed.