Honble GARG, J.–This appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 15.7.87 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Session Case No. 39/86 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused appellant for offence under Sec. 307 I.P.C. and has sentenced him as under:- Offence Sentence awarded U/Sec. 307 I.P.C. 7 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to further undergo 3 months R.I. (2). This appeal arises in the following circumstances: (i) On 23.5.86 at about 12.45 a.m. P.W. 4 Prithvi Singh lodged an oral report with the Police Station Devgarh, Udaipur before P.W. 12 Ram Singh stating that P.W. 7 Bhan Singh (injured) and the accused appellant were his relative and the accused appellant used to do the job of labour in Ahmedabad and his wife Jamni used to live in village Chatarpura with his mother-in-law and the accused appellant used to visit that village after 3 to 4 months. P.W.7 Bhan Singh had a camel and used to bring woods on it and for that he used to charge Rs. 20/- per fera. Before 2 months back, Jamni wife of the accused appellant asked P.W.7 Bhan Singh to bring woods and he brought the woods for that he demanded Rs.40/-, but jamni did not pay him and upon this some altercation took place between wife of the accused appellant and P.W. 7 Bhan Singh and further more between wife of accused appellant and wife of injured Bhan Singh i.e. Tulsi P.W. 6 over this matter and when before 10 to 12 days back, when the accused appellant came from Ahmedabad, his wife Jamni reported this matter, upon this he became angry and on the relevant day ie. on 22.5.86 he stabbed a knife on the back of PW. 7 Bhan Singh and further he wanted to give another blow which was stopped by P.W. 7 Bhan Singh on his hand. At that time, P.W. 8 Gaji Singh, P.W. 5 Kanna Singh P.W. 9 Mool Singh, P.W. 2 Panna & P.W.1 Prem Singh were also there. (3). On this report, police chalked out regular FIR Ex.P/11 and started investigation. (4). At that time, P.W. 8 Gaji Singh, P.W. 5 Kanna Singh P.W. 9 Mool Singh, P.W. 2 Panna & P.W.1 Prem Singh were also there. (3). On this report, police chalked out regular FIR Ex.P/11 and started investigation. (4). During investigation, the accused appellant was arrested through Fard Ex.P/2 on 26.5.86 by P.W. 3 Abhay Singh and as per the information Ex.P/3, a knife was also recovered from the possession of the accused appellant through Fard Ex.P/4 in presence of motbirs P.W. 4 Prithvi Singh and P.W. 1 Prem Singh. (5). P.W. 7 Bhan Sigh was got medically examined by P.W. 10 Dr. Rajesh Gupta and as per injury report Ex.P/10 P.W. 7 Bhan Singh received two injuries and out of the two injuries, injury NO. 1 was caused by sharp edged weapon and according to P.W. 10 Dr. Rajesh Gupta, it was grievous one. (6). After usual investigation, a challan for offence under Sec. 307 was presented against the accused appellant in the Court of Magistrate from where the case was committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rajsamand. (7). That on 12.1.87, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge for offence under Sec. 307 I.P.C. against the accused appellant who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. (8). During trial, 12 witnesses have been produced by the prosecution and thereafter statement of accused under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and no evidence was led in defence. (9). After the conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his judgment and order dated 15.7.87 convicted the accused appellant for offences under Sec. 307 and sentenced him as stated above holding that: (i) By giving one blow of knife, the accused has committed offence under SEc. 307 I.P.C. as he had intention to murder PW. 7 Bhand Singh and thus convicted and sentenced the accused appellant for offence under Sec. 307 I.P.C. as stated above. (10). Aggrieved from the said judgment, this appeal has been filed by the accused appellant. (11). 307 I.P.C. as he had intention to murder PW. 7 Bhand Singh and thus convicted and sentenced the accused appellant for offence under Sec. 307 I.P.C. as stated above. (10). Aggrieved from the said judgment, this appeal has been filed by the accused appellant. (11). In this appeal, following submissions have been made on behalf of the accused appellant:- (i) For the sake of arguments, if it is admitted that injury No. 1 of injured P.W. 7 Bhan Singh which is incised wound was cause by the accused appellant, then the same could not be assigned as grievous injury as there was no fracture of any bone and further more, no operation notes have been produced and, therefore, from this injury alone, case for offence under Sec. 307 I.P.C. cannot be held to be proved and the findings of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajsamand are erroneous one and case of prosecution for this injury cannot travel beyond Sec. 324 I.P.C. (ii) If the Court comes to the conclusion that that offence under Sec. 324 I.P.C. is found proved in place of Sec. 307 I.P.C. then the accused appellant may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him as he has remained in PC and JC for a period from 26.5.86 to 1.9.86 and from 15.7.87 to 18.11.87, meaning thereby that he has remained in Jail for about 8 months. Hence, it has been prayed that conviction for offence under Sec. 307 I.P.C. be altered to Sec. 324 I.P.C. and he be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. (12). On the contrary, the learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the judgment and orders passed by the learned trial Judge are based on proper appreciation of evidence and do no call for interference. (13). I have heard both the parties. (14). To appreciate the above contention, first medical evidence in the present case has to be seen which is found in the statement of P.W. 10 Dr. Rajesh Gupta. (15). P.W. 10 Dr. Rajesh Gupta has stated that on 23.5.86, he examined P.W. 7 Bhan Singh and found following two injuries on his person: (i) Punctured wound with profuse bleeding with injury to rt. Rajesh Gupta. (15). P.W. 10 Dr. Rajesh Gupta has stated that on 23.5.86, he examined P.W. 7 Bhan Singh and found following two injuries on his person: (i) Punctured wound with profuse bleeding with injury to rt. lung - 1 3/4" x 1 3/4" x 5" - grievous by sharp edged weapon (ii) lacerated would 3/4" x 1/8" - simple by blunt object. (16). Thus, P.W. 10 Dr. Rajesh Gupta has assessed injury No. 1 as grievous one caused by sharp edged weapon while injury No. 2 is lacerated wound on finger by blunt object. He has further stated that for injury No. 1 he advised x-ray and this injury might be dangerous to life. In cross-examination, P.W. 10 Dr. Rajesh Gupta has admitted that in ribs no fracture was found. (17). Since in the present case no x-ray report has been produced and no operation notes have been produced and simply by saying that injury No.1 was grievous one is not sufficient to make this injury as grievous one and further more P.W. 10 Dr. Rajesh Gupta has not come to the final conclusion that this injury was dangerous to life. He has not further stated that for how many period, P.W. 7 Bhan Singh remained in the hospital. In these circumstances, injury No. 1 on the person of P.W. 7, Bhan Singh cannot be designated as grievous one and same is now be treated as simple injury caused by sharp edged weapon. (18). From the statement of P.W. 7 Bhan Singh who is injured, it is also proved that the accused appellant gave knife blow on his back and his wife P.W. 6 Tulsi was in the house and when the accused appellant tried to give second blow, he stopped the same on his finger and received injuries in fingers, but as per medical report Ex.P/10, injury No. 2 found on the finger of the injured P.W. 7 Bhan Singh has been designated as simple by blunt object. (19). In these circumstances, the only irresistible conclusion that can be drawn is that by knife, the accused appellant gave one blow on the back of P.W. 7 Bhan Singh and that injury has been designated as simple one. (20). (19). In these circumstances, the only irresistible conclusion that can be drawn is that by knife, the accused appellant gave one blow on the back of P.W. 7 Bhan Singh and that injury has been designated as simple one. (20). The next question that arises for consideration is whether the findings of learned Additional Sessions, Rajsamand by which on the above medical evidence, he came to the conclusion that by causing injury No. 1 to P.W. 7 Bhan Singh which is incised wound on his back, the accused appellant committed offence under Sec. 307 I.P.C. are liable to be confirmed one or not. (21). To justify a conviction under Sec. 307 I.P.C. it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing 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 some 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. Such an act may not be attended by any result so far as the person assaulted is concerned, but still there may be cases in which the culprit would be liable under this section. 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 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 as held by the Honble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Balram Bama Patil (1). (22). Keeping in mind the above legal principles as laid down by the Honble Supreme Court, the facts of the present case are being examined. (23). (22). Keeping in mind the above legal principles as laid down by the Honble Supreme Court, the facts of the present case are being examined. (23). In this case, there is evidence that the accused appellant gave only one blow on the back of P.W. 7 Bhan Singh and that injury is found to be simple in nature by this Court, and, therefore, it cannot be held that the accused appellant had intention to murder P.W. 7 Bhan Singh. From medical evidence, it does not appear that this injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Therefore, in these circumstances, it cannot be held that by inflicting this injury on the back of P.W. 7 Bhan Singh, the accused appellant had intention to commit murder of P.W. 7 Bhan Singh and, therefore, the findings of learned Additional sessions Judge by which he convicted the accused appellant for offence under Sec. 307 I.P.C. are liable to be set aside. (24). The Honble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh vs. State of U.P. (2), has held that causing single injury on the back of neck - conviction for offence under Sec. 307 I.P.C. cannot be maintained and was altered to Sec. 324 I.P.C. (25). Since injury No. 1 found on the person of P.W. 7 Bhan Singh mentioned in Report Ex.P.10 has been found to be of simple in nature, therefore, the act of accused appellant in causing that injury would be covered under Sec. 324 I.P.C. in place of Sec. 307 IPC and findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge are liable to be altered accordingly. On the Point of Sentence (26). Looking to the fact that in the present case the incident occurred on 23.5.86 and now more than 15 years have elapsed and this period is enough to exhaust anybody mentally, physically and economically and looking to the fact that the accused appellant has remained in fail from 26.5.86 to 1.9.86 and thereafter from 15.7.87 to 18.11.87 and now after about 15 years, it would not be proper to send the accused appellant to Jail, therefore, if the accused appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him, it would meet the ends of justice. However it would be in the interest of justice that some compensation should be awarded to the injured P.W. 7 Bhan Singh and in my opinion, if Rs. However it would be in the interest of justice that some compensation should be awarded to the injured P.W. 7 Bhan Singh and in my opinion, if Rs. 2000/- are awarded to the injured P.W. 7 Bhan Singh, it would meet the ends of justice. (27). In the result, the appeal filed by the accused appellant Nena Singh is partly allowed in the following manner: The accused appellant is convicted for offence under Sec. 324 I.P.C. in place of Sec. 307 I.P.C. and the findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajsamand by which he convicted the accused appellant for offence under Sec. 307 I.P.C. through his judgment dated 15.7.87 are altered accordingly. The accused appellant is sentenced for offence under Sec. 324 I.P.C. to the period already undergone by him. The order of the learned Additional Rajsamand dated 15.7.87 stands modified accordingly. Since, the accused appellant is on bail, he need not surrender. His bail bonds are hereby cancelled. It is further directed that the accused appellant shall pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 2000/- to the injured P.W. 7 Bhan Singh and for depositing the sand amount in the trial court, the accused appellate is granted 3 months time from today. On depositing the said amount, the same be given to P.W. 7 Bhan Singh.