JUDGMENT The appellant is the accused before the trial Court and he was found guilty of having committed offences punishable under Sections 341 and 307 Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution-case is on 15-7-1996 at about 9.50 a.m., the appellant followed one Deepa Menon, who was doing Post Graduation in Library and Information Science in the University of Madras, wrongfully restrained her in front of the University Library Building and caused injury by stabbing her with a knife with the intention of causing her death. 3. The trial Court examined seven witnesses on the side of the prosecution, marked Exs.P-1 to P-11 documents and M.Os. 1 to 3 material objects, and after trial came to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty under Sections 341 and 307, IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo one month's S.I. for offence under Section 341, IPC and four years R.I. for offence under Section 307, IPC Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal. 4. Heard both the sides. The occurrence cannot be disputed because the appellant herein was caught in flagrante delicto. The bloodstained knife has been recovered from him from the very scene of the occurrence. Then, the wearing upper cloth of the victim was also recovered and when sent to chemical analysis, a report was received to the effect that all the three material objects contained human blood though the grouping was inconclusive. Therefore, it is evident that the appellant has inflicted an injury on the person of the victim. 5. The only question is whether the act of the appellant amounted to attempt' to commit murder? Section 307, IPC reads as under:- "307. Attempt to murder:- Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to, such punishment as is .herein before mentioned", The entire edifice of Criminal Law contained in Indian Penal Code is writ on the golden principle of actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit read. It is evident that the appellant had inflicted an injury. But the question is whether he had inflicted the injury with the intention of causing death of victim Deepa Menon. Intention can be ascertained by direct evidence and also by circumstantial evidence. 6. The circumstances which would indicate the intention are: (a) the weapon used; (b) part of the body over which the injury is inflicted; (c) number of injuries; and (d) nature of injuries. Ex.P-9 Accident Register entry would show that the Doctor, who examined the victim shortly after the occurrence found the following injuries: (i) cut injury 2 cm. x 1 cm. depth not known on the right anterior auxiliary field; (ii) contusion over the right arm; and (iii) superficial abrasion over right infra scapular region. P.W.2 had stated that the injuries were of simple in nature. The victim was treated as an out-patient. It would be useful to recall the evidence of P.W.4 at this juncture. According to P.W.4, after infliction of injury No. (i), P.W.I, the victim, fell down and rolled over the steps.P.W.6, the Doctor had not given the size of the contusion or abrasion either in Ex.P-9 or in the course of his evidence. It cannot be said that contusion and superficial abrasion would have been caused by a sharp edged weapon like M.O.1. It cannot be said that a contusion or superficial abrasion would cause death, if left unattended to. So far as the cut injury is concerned, it is clear that it is a very small injury measuring 2 cm x 1 cm. Of course, P.W.6, the Doctor had not probed the depth of the injury. But there is nothing to show that the injury was so deep, and that there was gushing of blood or the injury was sutured. When the opinion of P.W.6 is that the cut injury is a simple injury, considering its size, it cannot be said that the injury was such as would have caused death if 'unattended to. There had been infliction of only one injury, a simple injury and the nature of the injury was such that it had not warranted admission of the victim as an inpatient in the hospital for any further treatment. Thus, the circumstances would show the absence of intention for an attempted murder. 7. There had been infliction of only one injury, a simple injury and the nature of the injury was such that it had not warranted admission of the victim as an inpatient in the hospital for any further treatment. Thus, the circumstances would show the absence of intention for an attempted murder. 7. Coming to the direct evidence, according to the prosecution, at the time of the inflicting injury, the appellant had uttered" (Tamil Matter) indicating that the appellant had infatuation on Deepa Menon and because she was about to complain about his following her wherever she goes, he wanted to do away with her and therefore attempted to murder her. But the words .alleged to have been uttered by the appellant did not find a place in the FIR. The trial Judge himself has pointed out that in the course of her evidence P.W.1 had not stated that the appellant uttered such words at the time of inflicting the injury. There is no evidence to show that the appellant uttered words which would expose his intention. The facts would boil down to the position that the appellant had no intention to cause death and the prosecution has not proved that the appellant caused injury to Deepa Menon with the intention to do away with her. It would thus appeal that the action of the appellant would not attract the offence under Section 307, IPC. 8. Section 324, IPC recites asunder:- "324. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means: Whoever, except in the case provided for by Section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of• offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive, substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both." The appellant had inflicted one simple injury upon Deepa Meanon. But, the weapon used is a penknife and the blade portion of which is measured about five inches. But, the weapon used is a penknife and the blade portion of which is measured about five inches. Penknife of such size is a dangerous weapon. Therefore, when the appellant has voluntarily inflicted simple injury upon Deepa Meanon with a dangerous weapon, such act attracts the provision of Section 324, IPC. The trial Court ought to have found the appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 324 Indian Penal Code. 9. So far as the offence under Section 341 is concerned much arguments were not advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant and the oral evidence of P.W.1 in this regard has rightly been accepted by the trial Judge. The appellant was convicted to undergo simple imprisonment of one month for offence under Section 341 Indian Penal Code. 10. So far as the findings of the trial Court that the appellant had committed an offence under Section 307, IPC is concerned, it has to be set aside. The appellant is guilty of committing an offence under Section 324, IPC. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was in prison as an under trial prisoner for ninety days and he is confined in prison for more than 60 days after Appeal Judgment. It appears, the appellant was and is in prison for nearly 150 days. I feel the imprisonment already undergone by the appellant would be sufficient sentence for offence under Section 324, IPC. He had also paid a fine of Rs.500/-. 11. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed in part. The appellant is found not guilty under Section 307, IPC, but found guilty under Section 324, IPC and the sentences already undergone by him would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Out of the fine amount collected Rs. 400/- is to be paid as compensation to the victim. The judgment of the trial Court is modified accordingly. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 2323 of 2000 is closed as no order is necessary.