Honble GARG, J.–This appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order dated 4.9.92 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu in Sessions Case No. 35/1992 whereby he acquitted the accused respondent for offence under Sec. 307 I.P.C. (2). This appeal arises in the following circumstances:- i) On 31.10.88 P.W. 7 Ram Narayan lodged a written report Ex.P/6 before police Station Rajgarh, Dist. Churu at about 1.45 a.m. stating that on 30.10.88 at about 9.30 in the night when he was passing through the lane, he was stopped and attacked by the accused respondent with Barchhi with an intention to murder him and accused respondent was crying that ``he would certainly kill him and after each cry, he was causing injuries to him with Barchhi and thus he gave so many blows and made him severely injured. After hearing cry of P.W. 7 Ram narayan, his younger brother P.W.6 Girdhari came there and the intervened in the matter and saved him and apart from P.W. 6 Girdhari, this incident was witnessed by P.W. 5 Bhagwan Ram and P.W. 4 Nand Ram. (3). On this report police chalked out regular FIR Ex.P/7 and started investigation. (4). During investigation, P.W. 7 Ram Narayan was got medically examined by P.W. 2 Dr. Megh Singh and he found 14 injuries on his person and his injury report is Ex.P/3 and the x-ray report is Ex.P/1 but no fracture was found and during investigation, the respondent was arrested through Fard Ex.P/10 on 21.11.88 and during investigation, he gave information to P.W. 8 Shiv Chand for recovery of barchhi and the same is ex.P/11 and through Fard Ex.P/12, he got recovered one Barchhi before P.W. 3 Dana Ram and Gulab Singh. (5). That after usual investigation, the police submitted challan against the accused respondent for offence under Sec. 307 I.P.C. (6). On 5.6.91 the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge for offence u/S.307 I.P.C. against the accused respondent who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. (7). During trial, as many as 8 witnesses were produced on behalf of the prosecution and statements of accused respondents were recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. and two witnesses were examined in defence. (8). On 5.6.91 the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge for offence u/S.307 I.P.C. against the accused respondent who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. (7). During trial, as many as 8 witnesses were produced on behalf of the prosecution and statements of accused respondents were recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. and two witnesses were examined in defence. (8). After conclusion of the trial,the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused respondent for the charge framed against him through his judgment and order dated 4.9.92 inter alia holding: i) That P.W. 5 Bhagwana Ram and P.W. 6 Girdhari are interested witnesses and no reliance can be placed on them. ii) That no independent witness has been produced. iii) That evidence of so called recovery of Barchhi has got no evidentiary value in absence of FSL report. iv) That in site plan Ex.P/13, the place where witnesses were standing has not been shown and thus the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused respondent after giving him benefit of doubt. (9). Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 4.9.92 this appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan. (10). In this appeal, it has been argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that the case of prosecution stands proved from the statements of P.W. 5 bhagwana Ram, P.W. 6 Girdhari and P.W. 7 Ram Narayan as they have categorically stated about the manner in which the incident took place and how the injuries were inflicted by the accused respondent on the person of P.W. 7 Ram narayan and further more the oral evidence gets corroboration from the medical evidence, thus findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are erroneous one as there is sufficient evidence to connect the accused respondent with the commission of crime and hence the appeal should be allowed and accused respondent should be convicted. (11). On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused respondent submits that the judgment and order of the trial Judge are based on correct appreciation of evidence and the same do not call for interference by this Court. (12). I have heard both and perused the record. (13). (11). On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused respondent submits that the judgment and order of the trial Judge are based on correct appreciation of evidence and the same do not call for interference by this Court. (12). I have heard both and perused the record. (13). In this case, the alleged incident took place on 30.10.88 at about 9.30 p.m. and the report Ex.P/6 was lodged by P.W. 7 Ram narayan just after few hours of the occurrence i.e. on 31.10.88 at about 1.45 a.m. In the report Ex.P/6 there is clear mention of the fact that P.W. 7 Ram narayan was beaten by the accused respondent with Barchhi and names of P.W. 4 Nand Ram P.W. 5 Bhagwana Ram and P.W. 6 Girdhari are also found in report Ex.P/6 as eye witness to the incident. (14). Before proceeding further medical evidence in this case has to be seen which is found in the statements of P.W. 1 Dr. Purushottam and P.W. 2 Dr. Megh Singh. P.W. 2 Dr. Megh Singh states that on 31.10.88 he was Sr. Medical Officer in the hospital Rajgarh and on the police requisition, he examined P.W. 7 Ram narayan at about 3.40 a.m. and found following injuries on his person: i) Incised wound 1/2" x 1/4" x skin deep on palmor aspect of distal phalanx of left thumb. ii) Incised wound 1/2" x 1/4" x muscle deep on palmor aspect of middle left little finger. iii) Incised wound 3 1/2" x 1" x bone deep on lateral aspect of forehead and pareital region of left side of head. iv) Incised would 1" x 1/4" x bone deep on left parietal eminence of scalp. v) incised wound 3/4" x 1/10" x skin deep on middle of both parietal eminence of scalp. vi) Incised wound 4" x 1/2" x muscle and skin deep on back of rt. shoulder and upper and rt. lateral part of rt. scapular region. vii) Incised wound 4 1/2" 1/2" x skin and muscle deep on back of rt. side of chest to right scapular region. viii) Abrasion - contusion 4" x 1 1/2" on left supra scapular region and back of left scapular region. ix) Incised would 1 1/2" x 1/2" x muscle deep on rt. hand palmor aspect over hypothenr aspect. x) A6" ``linear abrasion on lateral aspect of middle of rt. thigh. side of chest to right scapular region. viii) Abrasion - contusion 4" x 1 1/2" on left supra scapular region and back of left scapular region. ix) Incised would 1 1/2" x 1/2" x muscle deep on rt. hand palmor aspect over hypothenr aspect. x) A6" ``linear abrasion on lateral aspect of middle of rt. thigh. xi) Incised wound 5" x 1" x bone deep on anterior and lateral aspect of rt. ankle joint-lateral aspect of rt. leg on its lower part. xii) Incised wound 2" x 1" x muscle deep on antro-medial aspect of left knee joint. xiii) Incised wound 1 x 1/2 muscle deep on lateral aspect of upper part of left thigh. xiv) Incised wound 3/4" x 1/4" x muscle deep on upper and medical part of left glutear region near chest. (15). P.W. 2 Dr. Megh Singh has proved his injury report Ex.P/3 and he has further stated that in case P.W.7 Ram narayan would not have been treated medically, injuries would have been fatal. He has further stated that after seeing s-ray he came to the conclusion that all the injuries received by P.W. 7 Ram Narayan were simple in nature, but were caused by sharp edged weapon. P.W. 1 Dr. Purushottam has stated that the injuries for which x- rays were advised were found simple and no fracture was found. Thus, from the statements of P.W. 1 Dr. Purushottam and P.W. 2 Dr. Megh Singh, it is very well proved that all the injuries mentioned in the report Ex.P/3 were found to be simple in nature and all were caused by sharp edged weapon and some of the injuries were caused on vital part of body of P.W. 7 Ram Narayan i.e. head etc. (16). The next question which arises for consideration is whether these injuries were caused by the accused respondent or not. (17). The learned Additional Sessions Judge did not believe the statement of P.W. 7 Ram Narayan as well as statements of other witnesses P.W. 5 Bhagwana Ram and P.W. 6 Girdhari. (18). In my considered opinion, the finding on acquittal recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are not only perverse but erroneous in all manner and order of acquittal passed by him should be set aside. (19). (18). In my considered opinion, the finding on acquittal recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are not only perverse but erroneous in all manner and order of acquittal passed by him should be set aside. (19). In the report Ex.P/6 which was lodged by P.W. 7 Ram Narayan just after few hour of the occurrence, there is clear mention of the fact that P.W 7 Ram Narayan was beaten by barchhi by accused respondent. P.W. 5 Bhagwana Ram has stated that the accused respondent caused injuries on the person of P.W. 7 Ram narayan and he saved P.W. 7 Ram Narayan from further beating at the hands of accused respondent and he has further stated that at that time P.W. 6 Girdhari and P.W. 4 Nand Ram also reached there. In cross- examination, P.W. 5 Bhagwana Ram admits that P.W.7 Ram Narayan is his relative and some of the injuries were caused by accused respondent before the reached and some of the injuries wee caused by him in his presence. (20). P.W. 6 is another eye witness and he has also stated that the accused respondent caused injuries by Barchhi on the person of P.W. 7 Ram Narayan. (21). It may be stated here that names of both these witnesses are found in the report Ex.P/6, but P.W. 4 Nand Ram whose name is also mentioned in the report Ex.P/6 has been declared hostile. (22). In this case, the main witness is injured himself who has been examined as P.W.7 by the prosecution and he has clearly stated that he was beaten by the accused respondent severely by barchhi and many blows were given to him by the accused respondent and after hearing cries, P.W.5 Bhagwana Ram, P.W.6 Girdhari and P.W.4 and Ram came. In the cross-examination, he admits that the report Ex.P/6 which was given by him at the police station was got written by one Mani Ram. From the statement of P.W.7 Ram Narayan, it cannot be presumed of inferred that he is telling lie and falsely implicating the accused respondent, rather it appears that his statement is straight forward, reliable and trustworthy. His statement is fully corroborated by the medical evidence and other evidence. From his statement, it appears that the injuries which were received by him, were caused by the accused respondent. His statement is fully corroborated by the medical evidence and other evidence. From his statement, it appears that the injuries which were received by him, were caused by the accused respondent. His statement further gets corroboration from the statements of P.W.5 Bhagwana Ram and P.W.6 Girdhari. In the present case since the report Ex.P/6 was lodged just after the occurrence, therefore, to say that accused respondent was falsely implicated cannot be accepted. (23). For the reasons mentioned above, it is held that the statement of P.W. 7 Ram Narayan is reliable and trustworthy and from his statement, it is well proved that the accused respondent caused injuries to injured P.W. 7 Ram Narayan and the findings of the learned Additional Sessions by which he has not accepted the statement of P.W. 7 Ram Narayan and acquitted the accused respondent for the charge for offence under Sec. 307 I.P.C. are liable to be set aside as they are perverse and against the weight of the evidence on record and manifest error appears in the impugned judgment and the learned Additional Sessions Judge misread the evidence and indulged in conjectural inference and surmises. (24). So far as the finding that evidence of recovery is doubtful in concerned, the same is not very much material in this case when there is direct evidence. Therefore, the findings of learned Additional Sessions Judge in this respect are not appreciable one. (25). The fact that P.W. 5 Bhagwana Ram and P.W.6 Girdhari are interested witnesses is also not helpful to the accused respondent as the statement of P.W. 7 Ram Narayan himself alone is sufficient to connect the accused respondent with the commission of crime as the statement of P.W. 7 Ram narayan is fully supported by the medical evidence. (26). The argument that no independent witness has been produced in this case is also of no avail as evidence which has been produced by the prosecution itself is sufficient to hold that the injuries which were found on the person of P.W. 7 Ram Narayan were caused by accused respondent by Barchhi. (27). The findings of learned Additional Sessions Judge that there are material contradictions and some improvements in the statements of prosecution witnesses are not appreciable one as the minor contradictions are natural one and from this point of view also the case of the prosecution does not suffer from any basic infirmity. (27). The findings of learned Additional Sessions Judge that there are material contradictions and some improvements in the statements of prosecution witnesses are not appreciable one as the minor contradictions are natural one and from this point of view also the case of the prosecution does not suffer from any basic infirmity. Minor discrepancies guarantees that the witnesses are not tutored one. (28). The next question that arises for consideration is whether the injuries which were received by P.W. 7 Ram Narayan are sufficient to make out a case for the offence under Sec. 307 I.P.C. or not. (29). To prove the charge for the offence under Sec. 307 I.P.C. the prosecution has to prove. 1) That the accused did an act. 2) That is 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. (30). In order to attract the penalty under Sec. 307 I.P.C. the murderous intent is an essential element. That intention can be gathered from the nature of weapon, the parts of the body where injury is inflicted, nature of injuries inflicted and the opportunity available which the accused gets. (31). It may also be pointed out here that in coming to the conclusion, the act of the accused should be kept in mind and not the result. In other words, the angle of guilt has to be viewed form the point of intention and not from the result achieved. (32). Keeping the above principles in mind, the present case is being examined. (33). In other words, the angle of guilt has to be viewed form the point of intention and not from the result achieved. (32). Keeping the above principles in mind, the present case is being examined. (33). In the present case weapon like Barchhi was used by the accused respondent in causing injuries to P.W.7 Ram Narayan and he caused not only a single of two injuries, but caused 14 injuries including some of them on vital part. Therefore, intention of the accused respondent to murder P.W. 7 Ram Narayan can be gathered. The injuries received by P.W.7 Ram Narayan can be gathered. The injuries received by P.W. 7 Ram Narayan itself goes to show that accused respondent had no intention except to murder P.W. 7 Ram narayan. Thus, it is a fit case where it can be said that the accused respondent had intention to kill P.W. 7 Ram Narayan and therefore, he should have been convicted for the offence under Sec. 307 I.P.C. for attempt to commit murder of P.W. 7 Ram Narayan. Thus, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not right in acquitting the accused respondent of the charge for offence under Sec. 307 I.P.C. as for ascertaining whether offence under Sec. 307 has been made out or not, the act of accused is to be seen and not the result. (34). That the accused attempted to cause such death by doing an act known to him to be so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause (a) death, or (b) such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the accused having no excuse for incurring the risk of causing such death or injury. (35). P.W. 2 Dr. Megh Singh has further stated that that in case P.W. 7 Ram Narayan would not have been treated medically, injuries would have been fatal. Therefore, From this point of view also, the injuries in the present case are sufficient to make a case for offence under Sec. 307 I.P.C. as some of the injuries are on very vital part of the body and were caused by dangerous weapon like Barchhi. (36). The intention on the part of the accused can be gathered from the nature of weapon used, manner in which it is used, severity of blow and part of the body where injury is inflicted. (36). The intention on the part of the accused can be gathered from the nature of weapon used, manner in which it is used, severity of blow and part of the body where injury is inflicted. There all factors make out a case for offence u/Sec. 307 I.P.C. In the present case,t he words which were being uttered by the accused respondent while inflicting injuries to P.W. 7 Ram narayan are substantive in nature to show that the blows which were given by the accused respondent were given by him with an intention to kill P.W. 7 Ram Narayan. (37). For the reasons stated above, it is held that the prosecution by producing cogent and reliable evidence has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused respondent for offence under Sec. 307 I.P.C. and thus, he is liable to be convicted for offence under Sec. 307 I.P.C. and the findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitting the accused respondent of the said offence are liable to be set aside as they are not based on correct appreciation of evidence and they are perverse and erroneous. (38). The Honble Supreme Court in Hari Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (1), has held that power of the High Court while hearing an appeal against the order of acquittal is as wide as an appeal against conviction. (39). The Court is also cautious of the principles governing and regulating the hearing of appeal by the High Court against an order of acquittal passed by the trial court as laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Ajit Savant Majagavi vs. State of Karnataka (2), and keeping these principles in mind, the finding of learned Additional Sessions Judge are being reversed and set aside as they are perverse and erroneous and there is manifest error and the learned Additional Sessions Judge misread the evidence and indulged in conjectural inference and surmises. On Point of Sentence (40). The accused respondent is going to the convicted for offence under Sec. 307 I.P.C. (41). The accused respondent was arrested on 21.11.88 through Fard Ex.P/10 and was released on 8.12.88. (42). In my opinion, the above period is not sufficient to meet out ends of justice for offence under Sec. 307 I.P.C. especially looking to the nature and graveness of the injuries. The accused respondent was arrested on 21.11.88 through Fard Ex.P/10 and was released on 8.12.88. (42). In my opinion, the above period is not sufficient to meet out ends of justice for offence under Sec. 307 I.P.C. especially looking to the nature and graveness of the injuries. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the incident took place on 30.10.88, if the accused respondent is sentenced to the period of years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to further undergo 6 months R.I. for offence under Sec. 307 it would meet the ends of justice. In the result, the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan is allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 4.9.92 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu in Sessions Case No. 35/92 acquitting the accused respondent for offence under Sec. 307 I.P.C. are set aside and the accused respondent Bhagwana Ram is convicted for offence under Sec. 307 I.P.C. and for the offence under Sec. 307 I.P.C., he is sentenced to undergo 2 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 5000, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 6 months R.I. As per the provisions of Sec. 428 Cr.P.C. the period of detention, if any, undergone by the accused respondent during the investigation or trial shall be set off from two years R.I. It is further order that out of fine recovered, Rs. 3000/- be paid to P.W. 7 Ram Narayan (injured) as compensation. Since the accused respondent is on bail, he shall surrender before the trial Court immediately and in case he does not surrender before the trial Court, the trial Court shall take necessary steps for arresting him and sending him to jail to serve out the remaining period of sentence.