UMA NATH SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS Criminal Appeal arises out of a judgment dated 17-7-1997 passed by learned IInd Additional Sessions judge, Guna, in Sessions Trial No. 391/ 1996 holding the accused/appellant guilty of offence under Section 307 and sentencing him to R. I. for five years and a fine of Rs. 300/- or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY narrated the facts of the prosecution case are that on 28-8-1996, accused/appellant caused Kulhadi (axe) injury to complainant Ramesh while he was grazing his cattle. It is said that accused/appellant reached there and asked complainant ramesh (P. W. 1) as why his cattle had grazed in his field yesterday. When the complainant tried to explain the position, he was assaulted by accused/appellant repeatedly for six times on vital parts of the body. According to the complainant the first blow landed on head, the second blow on the back of the head and the third and the fourth blows on both legs. When the complainant fell down after raising a cry he was again assaulted by the accused/appellant on his left arm resulting in severance of that limb. It is said that hearing the cry, Bhaiyalal (P. W. 2) and shantilal (P. W. 3) reached the spot. It is also said that these witnesses were threatened by the accused/appellant and, therefore, shantilal (P. W. 3) left the spot and informed dataar (P. W. 4), uncle of the complainant, about the incident. P. W. 4 reached the spot immediately and found the complainant lying injured. The complainant was taken to police station, he lodged the report and thereafter his dying declaration was recorded by an Executive Magistrate/naib tehsildar. On investigation, the prosecution put up a challan against the accused/appellant and two other persons namely kamarji Yadav and Dashrath Singh Yadav for offences under Section 307/34, IPC. On careful appreciation of evidence, only the accused/appellant was found guilty and sentenced as aforesaid. ( 3 ) IT is contended on behalf of the appellant that the offence was not intended, it resulted from a sudden scuffle between the complainant and the appellant. It is also said that though the complainant was caused serious injuries, but in absence of intention, it would not be an offence under Section 307, ipc. ( 3 ) IT is contended on behalf of the appellant that the offence was not intended, it resulted from a sudden scuffle between the complainant and the appellant. It is also said that though the complainant was caused serious injuries, but in absence of intention, it would not be an offence under Section 307, ipc. Alternatively, in case of affirmation of impugned judgment, it is submitted that this court may take a lenient view on the question of sentence as the accused/appellant has undergone three years of sentence including remission. It is also submitted that the incident took place 7 years back and at this distance of time it may not be warranted in the interest of justice to send the accused to jail for serving out the rest of sentence. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, it is contended by learned Govt. Advocate that the accused/ appellant caused repeated Kulhadi blows on vital parts of the body and looking to nature of injuries there is no reason for interference in appeal. ( 5 ) ON considering the rival submissions as also from reappreciation of evidence the impugned judgment does not call for an interference in appeal. The prosecution case is based on unimpeachable testimony of the complainant Ramesh (P. W. 1) who also lodged the F. I. R. Ex. P. 1. The F. I. R. contained a vivid description of the entire incident including the location of Kulhadi blows and the manner of assaults. The name of three witnesses namely Bhaiyalal (P. W. 2), shantilal (P. W. 3) and Dataar (P. W. 4) are also mentioned in the F. I. R. Bhaiyalal (P. W. 2) and Shantilal (P. W. 3) are the eye-witnesses and Dataar (P. W. 4) being the uncle of the complainant received information about the incident from Shantilal (P. W. 3 ). All the three witnesses have supported the evidence of complainant Ramesh (P. W. 1) in material particulars. That apart dying declaration was recorded by an Executive Magistrate, the F. I. R. and the medical evidence including the testimony of Dr. Pramod kumar Pathak (P. W. 7) lend unqualified support to the prosecution case. Similarly Veer singh Sapre (P. W. 6) Investigating Officer, has duly proved the seizure. In his statement under Section 313, Cr. That apart dying declaration was recorded by an Executive Magistrate, the F. I. R. and the medical evidence including the testimony of Dr. Pramod kumar Pathak (P. W. 7) lend unqualified support to the prosecution case. Similarly Veer singh Sapre (P. W. 6) Investigating Officer, has duly proved the seizure. In his statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. , the accused/appellant though has taken a plea of exchange of blows, but on careful appreciation of evidence, the plea does not appeal. Hence, the impugned judgment is affirmed and the conviction is upheld. ( 6 ) NOW coming to question of sentence, the incident took place 7 years back; both the parties are said to hail from the same village and there was no past enmity. The prosecution case is based on direct evidence, but the appellant has also taken a plea of self-defence in his statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. The accused/appellant is said to have served the actual sentence of two years and three months and including remission, he is said to have served a sentence of three years. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the accused/ appellant was only aged about 20 years at the time of incident and this Court may consider to enhance the fine amount in lieu of the jail sentence. Hence, the fine amount of rs. 300/- is enhanced to Rs. 20,000/- which shall be paid to complainant Ramesh (P. W. 1) as compensation under Section 357, Cr. P. C. ( 7 ) UNDER the circumstances, the jail sentence of 5 years' R. I. is reduced to three years as undergone by the appellant. However, the bail bonds of the accused/appellant shall be discharged only on depositing the fine amount of Rs. 20,000/-, within two months from receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing which, the appellant shall be taken in custody to undergo the remaining part of the sentence. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, the Criminal Appeal succeeds in part. Order accordingly. .