JUDGMENT - BRAHME P.S., J.:---This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed on 29-4-2003, by the IVth ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Beed, in Sessions Case No. 60 of 2002, whereunder the appellant Muktabai w/o Mahadeo Andhale was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months for offence under section 307 of India Penal Code. 2. The prosecution against the appellant was initiated on the basis of complaint lodged by the victim Sheelabai (P.W. 4) at Police Station Dindrud, for which offence under section 307 of Indian Penal Code was registered at C.R. No. 81 of 2001, in regard to an incident that took place on 4-7-2001, wherein the victim came to be assaulted by the appellant by means of knife inflicted in all six injuries as detailed in the certificate Exh. 22 issued by Dr. Momin (P.W. 3) who examined victim in Medical Hospital, Beed. Admittedly, the victim Sheelabai and the accused Muktabai are co-wives having married to one Mahadeo Andhale who was resident of village Salimba, Taluka Wadwani, District Beed. It is a matter of record that the accused Muktabai was say to say senior wife having two children born of her husband Mahadeo. But, it appears that since after victim Sheelabai was brought to matrimonial home by Mahadeo, Muktabai and her daughters were not maintained and as a result of that, Muktabai was required to initiate proceedings for maintenance against Mahadeo. That is how the basis or the object or the motive for Muktabai to assault Sheelabai was the belief of the appellant Muktabai that her husband was avoiding to pay maintenance to Muktabai and her daughters at the behest of the victim Sheelabai. 3. As per prosecution case, on 4-7-2001, complainant along with her sons had been to the field, taking rest after having lunch under a tamarind three and it was at about 3.00 p.m. when complainant was in sleep, appellant Muktabai at once assaulted her with knife with assistance of her daughter Meera. As soon as the first blow was received, Sheelabai raised shouts and while trying to save herself the appellant inflicted blows on her person causing multiple injuries. The victim was taken to Civil Hospital, Beed, where her statement was recorded vide Exh. As soon as the first blow was received, Sheelabai raised shouts and while trying to save herself the appellant inflicted blows on her person causing multiple injuries. The victim was taken to Civil Hospital, Beed, where her statement was recorded vide Exh. 24, which was treated as complaint and then after the offence was registered the investigation in the matter was carried out by P.S.I. Padale (P.W. 7). During the course investigation, the Investigating Officer made spot Panchanama Exh. 19 and that time knife came to be seized from the place of occurrence and the appellant was arrested on 5-7-2001. The clothes of the victim came to be seized under Panchanama Exh. 29. The articles seized were sent to Chemical Analyser, Aurangabad for examination. After the receipt of report of Chemical Analyser Exhs. 37 and 38 and completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Majalgaon, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Beed. 4. Before the trial Court, appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined in all seven witnesses, including complaint Sheelabai (P.W. 4), eye-witness Manohar (P.W. 2), Dr. Momin (P.W. 3) and Investigating Officer P.S.I. Padale (P.W. 7). It may be noted that the defence of the accused was that she had filed maintenance suit against her husband in which compromise had taken place and in pursuance of that she was taken to matrimonial home, but thereafter her husband, to avoid payment of maintenance to her, filed a false case against her with the help of complainant. The trial Court has rightly rejected the defence. It may be noted further that the factum of injuries sustained by the victim is not disputed. Apart from that, on the evidence of complainant and witness Manohar, coupled with medical evidence of Dr. Momin (P.W. 3), the factum of injuries sustained by the victim is duly established. But what was found surprising by the trial Court was that the defence has nowhere explained as to how and in what manner the victim had sustained injuries. It was on that count, it appears the trial Court has observed that the defence taken by the accused as to false involvement of the accused in this case, is palpably false. But what was found surprising by the trial Court was that the defence has nowhere explained as to how and in what manner the victim had sustained injuries. It was on that count, it appears the trial Court has observed that the defence taken by the accused as to false involvement of the accused in this case, is palpably false. The trial Court, accepting the evidence of complainant and eye-witness Manohar (P.W. 2) and medical evidence, came to the conclusion that complainant sustained injuries as a result of assault by the accused with knife, which was found to be the weapon of assault. That finding is further strengthened on the basis of the report of Chemical Analyser Exh. 37. As per this report, the blood group of blood of complainant was "B". What is incriminating is the further finding and detection by the Chemical Analyser in the report Exh. 38, wherein the blood detected on knife (Exh. 2), sari (Exh. 3), petticoat (Exh. 4) and blouse (Exh. 5) was of blood group "B". The trial Court, having regard to the facts and the circumstances of the case and particularly inimical relations between complainant and accused and the factum of multiple injuries with one injury that was incised wound on right hypochondrium stab injury 2 x 1 x ½ cm., concluded that the accused inflicted injuries with the intention to commit murder, and in keeping with these findings held the appellant guilty for offence under section 307 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly the appellant was sentenced to suffer imprisonment and fine as stated earlier. 5. I have heard Shri S.S. Thombare, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri A.V. Gorhe, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the appellant, I have gone through the evidence of material witnesses and also the findings and reasoning given by the trial Court. 6. The learned Counsel submitted that the evidence on record consisting of testimony of complainant Sheelabai and eye-witness Manohar and the complaint Exh. 24, is not consistent and cogent as there are serious contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence, which, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, falsifies the prosecution case. 6. The learned Counsel submitted that the evidence on record consisting of testimony of complainant Sheelabai and eye-witness Manohar and the complaint Exh. 24, is not consistent and cogent as there are serious contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence, which, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, falsifies the prosecution case. He also submitted that having regard to the nature of injuries caused and the main germane of the quarrel vis-a-vis the rival relationship between complainant and accused as co-wives, it cannot be said that the accused had intention to commit murder and that the assaulted the victim with the intention to cause death of the victim. He submitted that the trial Court has committed an error in first convicting the appellant and in the alternate, the learned Counsel submitted, that the offence under section 307 of Indian Penal Code is not at all made out, but having regard to the injuries sustained, at the most, offence would be under section 324 of Indian Penal Code, and if that is so, the learned Counsel urged that having regard to the fact that the complainant has to maintain two daughters when there being no support from her husband and that she being languishing in jail since about a year, she be dealt with leniently. 7. Shri A.V. Gorhe, learned Additional Public Prosecution, on the other hand, submitted that on the evidence on record, the prosecution has established the case and the trial Court has committed no error in holding the appellant guilty, nor there is any inconsistency in the evidence of material witnesses. He also urged that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the factum of injuries sustained by the victim and the nature thereof, the appellant may be dealt with accordingly. 8. After having carefully considered the evidence of complainant Sheelabai and eye-witness Manohar, coupled with the medical evidence, I do not think that any material inconsistency or contradiction, as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant, could be said to have occurred even after giving full allowance to what has been suggested by the defence at the trial. I may go a step further and say that even accepting that there are contradictions, as suggested by the learned Counsel for the appellant, those contradictions or inconsistencies are not on material particulars. I may go a step further and say that even accepting that there are contradictions, as suggested by the learned Counsel for the appellant, those contradictions or inconsistencies are not on material particulars. In the first place, the presence of witness Manohar at the place of occurrence is not specifically challenged, muchless the fact deposed to by this witness as to having witnessed the incident. What is gathered from the evidence of this witness Manohar is that there is absolutely no reason for him to depose or give evidence against the appellant. He was totally a stranger to the family and having regard to the family dispute which rose out of the rivalry between two co-wives, the witness Manohar had no reason to implicate the appellant falsely, nor there is anything elucidated through the cross-examination of this witness, to spell out even that the witness was made to depose against the appellant at the behest of either complainant or her husband. Therefore, in this background, when appreciated the evidence of witnesses Manohar, it is found that he has supported the version of complainant Sheelabai on all fours. 9. The incident has taken place at about 3.30 p.m. on 4-7-2001. The complainant was immediately taken to Civil Hospital, Beed, where her statement Exh. 24 was recorded on the same day at 7.10 p.m., after she was examined by the doctor and then it was on the basis of that complaint, offence was registered at Dindrud Police Station. What is surprising to note on reading the complaint Exh. 24 is the fact that the presence of this witness Manohar and his brother Pandu at the time of occurrence and also having rescued the complainant when she was assaulted by the accused has been specifically stated in that complaint. This has significance when there was no room for the complainant to fabricate a false complaint against the accused. Therefore, presence of this witness Manohar and part played by him, as depicted in the complaint Exh. 24, lends assurance to the credibility of this witness and, therefore, the trial Court has rightly accepted his evidence, which corroborates the evidence of complainant. Therefore, presence of this witness Manohar and part played by him, as depicted in the complaint Exh. 24, lends assurance to the credibility of this witness and, therefore, the trial Court has rightly accepted his evidence, which corroborates the evidence of complainant. Bearing in mind this nature of evidence, the credibility of evidence of witness Manohar, the story that has been disclosed by the complainant before the Court, sounds natural and has to be accepted as trustworthy even if there are some contradictions as pointed out by the learned Counsel in the deposition vis-a-vis the complaint Exh. 24. 10. As pointed out earlier while narrating the prosecution case making reference to the evidence of Dr. Momin (P.W. 3), which has practically gone unchallenged, it must be said that the evidence of complainant and that of eye-witness Manohar gains corroborated by medical evidence and it is clinchingly established on the evidence that on the day of occurrence at the time and place the accused/appellant assaulted the victim Sheelabai causing multiple injuries including the injury of incised wound on hypochondrium as referred earlier, having regard to the report of Chemical Analyser, wherein the blood detected on the knife and clothes of the victim was found to be of blood ground "B" which was the blood group of the victim and the very undisputed fact that the knife has been seized from the place of occurrence, clinches the issue and there is no hesitation in holding that the knife (Exh. 2) was the weapon of assault. 11. The vital question that falls for consideration is whether what is the offence committed by the appellant by assaulting the victim with the knife causing multiple injuries. The trial Court has found her guilty of offence under section 307 of Indian Penal Code. The learned Counsel for the appellant has seriously challenged that finding of the trial Court and submitted that the offence that is made out in the facts and the circumstances of the case is that under section 324 of Indian Penal Code. 12. I am mindful of the fact that as far as legal position is concerned, so far as offence under section 307 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, the Court has to see the intention or the knowledge of accused and not consequence of actual act done for the purpose of carrying out the intention. 12. I am mindful of the fact that as far as legal position is concerned, so far as offence under section 307 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, the Court has to see the intention or the knowledge of accused and not consequence of actual act done for the purpose of carrying out the intention. It is in that perspective that I had an occasion to consider the effect of section 307 of Indian Penal Code, in a case where the accused at the threshold of the trial challenged the accusation against them for offence under section 307 of Indian Penal Code on the ground that no injury was sustained as grievous and sufficient to cause death. In that matter, which is reported 2004(1) Bom.C.R.(Cri.) (N.B.)820, in (Ajay Anantkumar Patil others, applicants v. State of Maharashtra, respondent)1, I have observed that to attract section 307 of Indian Penal Code, it is not necessary to show that bodily injury capable of causing death was inflicted. The Court has to see whether the act irrespective of its results was done with the intention or knowledge and under the circumstances mentioned in this section. It is needless to say that for the purpose of commission of offence under section 307 of Indian Penal Code, what is material is the intention or the knowledge and not the consequence of the actual act done for the purpose of carrying out the intention. It is, therefore, crystal clear that fact of victim suffering injuries in the assault is not per say relevant to hold that the offence under section 307 of Indian Penal Code is made out. Therefore, even if when the attack is made, no injuries is sustained, still then from the circumstances attending the case, the nature of dispute, the manner in which attack was made, the gravity of the rivalry, the Court can gather the intention of the assailants and if it is found on the assessment of these circumstances that the intention was to commit murder or to cause injury sufficient to cause death in all probability, then the offence under section 307 of Indian Penal Code is made out. But, at the same time if in the assault some injuries are inflicted by means of weapon that is used by the assailant, the nature of injuries caused is one of the factors certainly to determine the intention in the mind of assailant while inflicting the injury. In the case before hand, though admittedly victim suffered six injuries and all of them having been caused by the knife, a sharp cutting instrument, according to the Medical Officer Dr. Momin (P.W. 3), as described in the certificate Exh. 22, injury Nos. 1 to 5 were of simple nature and injury No. 6 was grievous one. Dr. Momin (P.W. 3) neither in his certificate nor in his evidence has clarified and stated that Injury No. 6 was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. He has simply stated that Injury No. 6 was grievous one. Having regard to the size of the said injury as described in the certificate, it is very difficult to ascribe this injury as grievous hurt as defined in section 320 of Indian Penal Code. Nothing is brought on evidence that the victim was required to be admitted in the hospital as an indoor patient. It is significant to note that under section 320 of Indian Penal Code, by Clause Eightly, any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits, is a kind of hurt, which is designated as grievous hurt. 13. Then, we are left with nature of dispute or the cause of dispute. It was obvious that as the husband was not prepared to maintain the appellant and her children in spite of there being compromise in maintenance suit, as stated by defence, the appellant had grudge against the complainant, who is admittedly second wife living with husband along with children. Having regard to this nature of dispute or rivalry, as admitted, I do not think that even it could be spelt out that the appellant intended to cause death of the victim by inflicting blows with the knife. It is pertinent to note that the other injuries which came to be caused by the appellant were admittedly simple in nature. Having regard to this nature of dispute or rivalry, as admitted, I do not think that even it could be spelt out that the appellant intended to cause death of the victim by inflicting blows with the knife. It is pertinent to note that the other injuries which came to be caused by the appellant were admittedly simple in nature. Therefore, it appears that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, what was intended by the appellant was to cause hurt to the victim with the knife. Having regard to the size of the weapon knife and the fact that incised wounds have been caused by means of that knife, it can be said that the weapon of the assault was certainly a dangerous weapon and, therefore, the appellant has, by inflicting injuries with the knife voluntarily caused hurt by dangerous weapon and, therefore, in the facts and the circumstances of the case, the offence would be that punishable under section 324 of Indian Penal Code. The learned Counsel for the appellant has prayed that the appellant being in jail since the date of decision i.e. 29-4-2003, leniency may be shown to the appellant. Having regard to the nature of offence committed, as also the manner in which it is committed, I am of the opinion that while maintaining the sentence of fine, sentence of imprisonment of two years would meet the ends of justice. In that view of the matter, the appeal will have to be allowed partly. Hence the order. 14. Appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant for offence under section 307 of Indian Penal Code is set aside. Instead of that, appellant is convicted for offence under section 324 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. One Thousand, in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The appellant is entitled to set-off under section 428 of Criminal Procedure Code, as also the period in jail after conviction. Appeal partly allowed. -----