Judgment Vikramaditya Prasad, J.-The appellant, Rabindra Kumar Jha, stands convicted for offence under sections 307, 326 and 387/511 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous Rio for 7 years with a fine of Rs. 5000/- or in default to pay, one year S.1. under section 307 IPC, further to undergo Rio for 5 years with a fine of Rs. 5000/- or in default, one year S.1. under section 326 IPC, further to undergo Rio for 2 years with a fine of Rs. 2000/- under section 387/511 IPC and in default to pay the fine, to undergo S.I. for 6 months. This appeal has been preferred against that conviction and sentence on trial. 2. The prosecution case as per the fardbeyan of RW. 4, Saiyad Md. Imtiyaz, the informant-injured, is that on 5.3.2001 at about 5.30 p.m. when he was going on a motor cycle on road in between A.C.C. Gate and EC.1. Gate near a Khatal, he was stopped by the accused Rabindra Kumar Jha and questioned as to whether he was the brother of Munna Babu, he replied that he was the nephew of Munna Babu. The informant also exclaimed as to what did the accused want. The accused replied that he had to take revenge of old enmity. The accused in the meantime struck the neck of the informant on the front side by means of a sharp edged Razor, resulting into severe neck cut injuries. The informant fell down with his motor cycle, but fortunately one unknown person took the injured informant on the same motor cycle to F.C.I. Hospital, Sindri. The informant was treated in the said hospital. 3. The defence version of the case is denial of the occurrence. 4. The informant fell down with his motor cycle, but fortunately one unknown person took the injured informant on the same motor cycle to F.C.I. Hospital, Sindri. The informant was treated in the said hospital. 3. The defence version of the case is denial of the occurrence. 4. The questions to be answered in this appeal are (i) whether a person having an injury of the nature on the neck caused by sharp on (over) throat with severing muscles, veins, arteries and trachea of 4" x 2" x 1 ", which was caused upon the throat below the cricoid cartilage, the nature of which was found to be grievous, can make statements when he was brought to the hospital with the aforesaid injury, (ii) whether, if he cannot make such a statement, the entire prosecution can fail on the ground that the implication of the accused was false, (iii) whether in absence of any repeated blow, the injury did constitute an offence under section 307 IPC and (iv) whether non-examination of the witness who allegedly brought the injured to hospital makes the prosecution case dis-believable? 5. Question No. (i) whether a person having an injury of the nature on the neck caused by sharp on (over) throat with severing muscles, veins, arteries and trachea of 4" x 2" x 1", which was caused upon• the throat below the cricoid cartilage, the nature of which was found to be grievous, can make statements when he was brought to the hospital with the aforesaid injury? The Doctor, P.W. 5, who examined the injured at the Sindri Hospital on 5.3.01 at 5.00 in the Surgical Outdoor found the aforesaid injury. In his examination-in-chief, he says that the patient was profusely bleeding 3 +, pulse 60, respiration-20, blood pressure not recordable. In paragraph 5, he says that fresh profused blood was coming out of wound and mouth. The patient was later on referred to Central Hospital, Dhanbad, for better treatment. The Doctor, who examined, is a simple MBBS, para-9, and had no specialization either in Surgery or in E.N.T. In his cross-examination, he says that the whole trachea was visible as it was cut or shivered in such a way below the throat and trachea was cut so it was visible in two parts. The injury was measured to be of 4" x 2" x 1 ". The injury was measured to be of 4" x 2" x 1 ". In para 18, the Doctor further says that patient's blood pressure was not recordable as it was almost low below any record and the patient's condition was definitely hopeless and much serious. All the muscles, veins, arteries were found cut or shivered nearby the trachea. The Doctor denied a suggestion that such injury was caused by fall on the edge of the mirror of the motor-cycle. In the entire evidence of the Doctor either in chief or in cross-examination, it has not come whether an injured having such an injury could make any statement or even could speak. So in the evidence of the expert Doctor, this point has not been elicited from either side. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the F.I.R. was lodged in this case on the basis of the fardbeyan, Ext. 1, of the injured himself, which was' recorded by S.I., R.B. Dayal on 5.3.01 at F.C.1. Hospital, Sindri, in Surgical Theatre at 19 hours and therefore, the learned counsel argues that such a detailed Fardbeyan from a person having such an injury is not possible. He goes to the extent of saying that he could not have given any statement. He, of course, admitted that if after the treatment was over, had he given such a fardbeyan, then despite the delay in lodging of the F.I.R., which could be explainable, could have been more believable than the present one, simply because that a person, whose blood pressure was not even recordable, whose pulse rate was 60 and whose trachea was cut, could not have made such a statement in such a condition and that makes the fardbeyan disbelievable. P.W. 1 is the brother of the informant injured. In his examination-in-chief, he says that after hearing the news he went to the hospital where his brother told him that Rabindra Jha, the convict, had cut his neck. The injured also said him that from Munna Babu, the convict had demanded Rangdari Tax and when he did not pay the tax, the convict had taken the revenge. In his cross-examination, vide para 6, he said that he had stated whatever his brother told to him. The injured also said him that from Munna Babu, the convict had demanded Rangdari Tax and when he did not pay the tax, the convict had taken the revenge. In his cross-examination, vide para 6, he said that he had stated whatever his brother told to him. Thus, from this evidence, it also transpires that the injured was in the hospital, soon after the occurrence when this witness went to him, told the aforesaid fact. He was not even asked any question on or any suggestion was not given to him that his brother was not in a position to speak. P.W. 2 is another man, who also went to that hospital and saw the injured, but at that time his neck-injury had been stitched and he told this witness that Rabindra has inflicted this. In para 15, he says that when the injured told this fact to him, there was no staff in the hospital, nor the Doctor was present but there was certain other persons, whose names he did not know. P.w. 3 says that after hearing the news, he went to hospital where he came to know about the injury caused to the injured by a sharp cutting weapon (Austora). On enquiry, the injured told him that when he was returning, Rabindra Jha had given the blow by Chura. In para 7, he says that besides otners, Imataz has also told him about the occurrence in the hospital. P.w. 4 is the injured himself. He has admitted that he had given the fardbeyan, Ext. 1. He says that one person came and took him to hospital, para 1 and he does not know his name. In para 19, he says that he did not disclose the name of Rabindra Jha to the person who took him to hospital. But in para 20, he says that he has disclosed to the Doctor that it was Rabindra who had caused him the injury. But he did not tell this fact to the police that he has stated before the Doctor the name of the accused, para 24. P.w. 6 is the I.O. He also recorded the fardbeyan, Ext. 1, and proves his signature, Ext. 1/1 thereon and he says that he recorded the fardbeyan as per the statements made by the injured and then the investigation was entrusted to him. P.w. 6 is the I.O. He also recorded the fardbeyan, Ext. 1, and proves his signature, Ext. 1/1 thereon and he says that he recorded the fardbeyan as per the statements made by the injured and then the investigation was entrusted to him. In para 3 of the cross-examination, he says that after receiving casualty report from the hospital, the Officer-in-charge has sent him to the hospital. This witness was also not suggested that the injured was not in a position to speak. On perusal of the impugned judgment, it does not transpire that this question was even raised there and this question has been raised here for the first time in this appeal. "Modi in his Jurisprudence, 22nd Edition, page 420" writes that the wounds of the neck are mostly incised and punctured. In India they are more often homicidal than suicidal and sometimes accidental. The appellant had attempted before the trial court to make out a case of accident by suggesting that injured fell from the motor cycle on the mirror attached to the motor cycle and got the injuries in question, which was denied by the Doctor. Thus, the case of accident is not established. There is no case that the injured had tried to commit suicide and subsequently he had implicated the convict. So this theory also goes. The learned trial court in the impugned judgment came to find that the injury is almost admitted which is evident from the suggestions given by the defence. Thus, the injury is not denied and in the aforesaid circumstances, depending upon the medical jurisprudence, this injury appears to be homicidal. Modi further says that in the case of wound of larynx, speak is possible, if the wound is above the vocal cord, even if it is gapping over any wound of larynx below the vocal cord and in that of trachea, no speech in possible. In such a case, one may be able to speak in a whisper if the wound is not gapping sufficiently to allow the air to pass into the mouth. There is no finding given by the Doctor that Iyran was also cut or ruptured. In that circumstances, the Iyran being in tact, the voice is possible. 7. In such a case, one may be able to speak in a whisper if the wound is not gapping sufficiently to allow the air to pass into the mouth. There is no finding given by the Doctor that Iyran was also cut or ruptured. In that circumstances, the Iyran being in tact, the voice is possible. 7. At the first blush, I wondered that even if the Iyran is not cut, how a person having so badly depressed blood pressure, pulse rate, bleeding from mouth could make a statement and therefore, felt agreeing with the learned counsel for the appellant that the whole F.I.R. is a suspected one as it could not be the statement of such an injured person with the aforesaid injury and in the aforesaid condition. But on further scrutiny, I found that the aforesaid condition of depressed blood pressure, low pulse rate was at 5.00 p.m., when the Doctor examined him, he was immediately given medical aid for the repairment of his trachea which appeared to have been stitched. The fardbeyan was recorded at 7.00 p.m., i.e. after two hours of the condition in which the injured was found at 5.00 p.m. There is nothing on record to show that even after these two hours, the condition of the injured remained the same as it was at 5.00 p.m. The F.I.R. bears the signature of the informant-injured also and it has not been challenged and thus, it appears that at that time, when the fardbeyan was recorded, the injured was in a position to give his signature, then in that circumstances it does not become doubtful that the injured was not in a position to make a statement and therefore, the fardbeyan cannot be doubtful on the ground that the injured was not in a position to speak. The answer of the question is that in the circumstances, when the Iyran of the injured was not cut and the statement was given after two hours of the medical aid given in the Surgical Ward, the injured informant has given the statement. 8. Question No. (ii)-whether, if the injured could not make such a statement, the entire prosecution can fail on the ground that the implication of the accused was false? The answer of this question is based upon the answer of the question no. (i) and as the question no. 8. Question No. (ii)-whether, if the injured could not make such a statement, the entire prosecution can fail on the ground that the implication of the accused was false? The answer of this question is based upon the answer of the question no. (i) and as the question no. (i) has been answered in affirmative, the answer to this question is that the fardbeyan is not a doubtful one; therefore, this ground cannot be a ground for disbelieving the prosecution case. 9. Question no. (iii) whether in absence of any repeated blow the aforesaid, injury did not constitute an offence under section 307 IPC? In this case, the only eye-witness is the victim, P.w. 4, vide para 12 of his cross-examination, himself. In his examination-in-chief, he says that when the accused gave signal to the victim to stop his motor-cycle, he stopped his motor cycle and asked him whether he was the brother of Munna Babu, then he said that he was the nephew of Munna Babu and then the accused said that he has to score some old enmity and telling this, "he suddenly took out a Razor and slit at his neck. In his cross-examination, para 16, he said that as he could not guess as to what he was going to do, he could not flee. From the aforesaid evidence, it is provided that (i) the occurrence did take place suddenly, (ii) the accused does not appear to have caught hold of any part of the body of the injured, (iii) he simply threw the Razor which slit the neck of the injured and (iv) there was, at that time, none else. The part of the body hit, the nature of the injury and the evidence of P.w. 5, vide para 18, that the condition of the patient was definitely hope- ' less and much serious leave no doubt that had the patient not been given immediate medical aid, it could have resulted in his death. 10. Section 307 IPC does not state that there must be repeated attack in order to attract this section. If a vital part of the body is attacked, then despite absence of another blow or any intervention, this section can be attracted. Section 307 reads as follows : "307. 10. Section 307 IPC does not state that there must be repeated attack in order to attract this section. If a vital part of the body is attacked, then despite absence of another blow or any intervention, this section can be attracted. Section 307 reads as follows : "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 or murder ......." So either the intention should be there or the knowledge should be there for bringing the act within the mischief of section 307 I.P.C. Repetition, therefore, is not a requirement. Now the question is whether the appellant had the intention or the knowledge. By now there is nothing on record that the accused caught hold of the injured and then slit his neck, rather the evidence is that he suddenly took out the razor and threw. In such circumstances, there could be two possibilities-when a person is caught, intentionally his neck is cut or as both the persons were standing and it appears, quite close to each other, the accused suddenly slit him with razor. Naturally, the portion of the b09Y reachable, because of the standing position, is the neck; but it could have been even the other portion of the body also, particularly the upper parts. In such a situation, in absence of any physical over-powering of the informant, the intention to hit the neck and the neck alone or the knowledge that he was going to attack the neck is found lacking. Thus, in my view, section 307 IPC will not be attracted, and as there was none else, had the accused intention to kill, nothin.9 could have prevented him from repeating the blows particularly when he fell down. In the facts and circumstances of this case, as the injury is grievous caused by a dangerous weapon or means, caused voluntarily without any provocation coming from the side of the informant, so, in my considered view, it is the section 326 IPC, which becomes applicable in this case. The question is, thus, answered accordingly. 11. Question no. (iv) whether non-examination of the witness who allegedly brought the injured to hospital makes the prosecution case disbelievable? This question has been much highlighted and impressed by the learned counsel for the appellant. The question is, thus, answered accordingly. 11. Question no. (iv) whether non-examination of the witness who allegedly brought the injured to hospital makes the prosecution case disbelievable? This question has been much highlighted and impressed by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is a fact that the person, who brought the informant to the hospital, has neither been made a charge-sheet witness, nor has been produced before the court. Therefore, this question has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. I have examined what would have been the effect, had this person been examined as a witness. The informant himself has said that he had not stated to that person the name of the assailant, P.w. 4, vide para 19. It appears quite clear that the informant could' not have disclosed the name of the assailant at that time because of his condition at that relevant time to the person who brought him to the hospital. It appears that the I.O. any how had traced out that man and had examined him. The I.O., P.w. 6, para 5, says that it was Rajdeo Singh, who had brought the injured to the hospital and he had told him during this period that Rabindra Kumar Jha had assaulted him. This very I.O. in his statement in this very paragraph says that Rajdeo Singh told him later on that he had heard that it was Rabindra Kumar Jha, who had injured the informant. Thus, the I.O. himself belies his own statement that Rajdeo told him that while he was carrying the victim to the hospital, he had told the name of Rabindra Jha as the assailant. To know the truth, I have gone to the pages of the case diary. His statement has been recorded in para 16 of the case diary. In this statement, Rajdeo Singh has not said that the victim had told him the name of the assailant when he was taking him to hospital. Thus, the I.O. in his evidence went beyond what he had recorded in the case diary during investigation. In the aforesaid circumstances, the examination of that witness could have proved this much that he had removed the patient from the P.O. to hospital, but it could not have proved that the injured had told him the name of the assailant during transit from the P.O. to the hospital. In the aforesaid circumstances, the examination of that witness could have proved this much that he had removed the patient from the P.O. to hospital, but it could not have proved that the injured had told him the name of the assailant during transit from the P.O. to the hospital. A sub-question then arises whether in absence of his examination, it becomes doubtful that the injured was brought from that place. In this context, the I.O.'s evidence becomes relevant again, who said that he visited the P.O. and found some blood, but because of continuous plying of the vehicles, no blood could be collected by him, P.W. 5, para 12. Thus, the P.O. as described by the injured is also corroborated by the I.O. because blood stains were visible there and so, it is proved that the" alleged occurrence took place at that particular place. Considering the entire facts discussed above, it is held that non-examination of Rajdeo Singh, the person, who had brought the injured to the hospital is not at all fatal for the prosecution. This question is answered accordingly. 12. Now it becomes necessary to examine whether it is safe to rely on the sole testimony of the injured. It has already been found that the people went to meet him in the hospital they were informed by the injured about the name of the assailant. So it is not that the name of the accused is coming at a belated stage. The evidence has come that the injured knew and identified the accused from before and in para 9, he says that the accused had come at his shop and he was a resident of• Madhubani, para 10. In para 15, he says that he identified the accused three months prior to the occurrence as he was asking for rangdari. From this evidence, the identification of the accused as the assailant does not remain doubtful. There is no evidence that the injured or Munna Babu had reported against the accused for his demanding Rangdari, but this in itself IS not a ground to disbelieve the occurrence. The reason may be various, but if the accused has been identified while committing the crime and there is no doubt about the identity. In such a situation, reliance on the sole testimony of the injured is not bad. 13. The reason may be various, but if the accused has been identified while committing the crime and there is no doubt about the identity. In such a situation, reliance on the sole testimony of the injured is not bad. 13. The appellant has been convicted for an offence under section 387/511 I.P.C. also. Section 387 IPC provides that the person must be put in fear of death or of grievous hurt in order to commit extortion. Here the informant was not put in fear of death or grievous hurt, rather the injury was directly caused. There is no evidence that it was said to him earlier that if he would not give or part with money or property, he would be killed or injured. So section .387/511 I.P.C. is not applicable in this case. 14. On the total consideration of the facts adduced on record supported by evidence, I hold that the conviction of the accused appellant under sections 307 and 387/511 IPC is not maintainable and consequently, the conviction and sentence against these two offences is set aside. Nevertheless, the conviction under section 326 IPC as ordered by the trial court and the sentence awarded against the offence is upheld as it is found that it does not require any interference. 15. With the partial modification in the finding of the trial court, this appeal is dismissed.