( 1 ) THIS Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 8-4-1999 passed in S. C. No. 108 of 1998 on the file of the metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad whereby and where under the learned Metropolitan Sessiions Judge found A-l-K. Rambabu guilty for the offence undeir Section 307 I. P. C. and convicted him accordingly and scntcncol him to suffer Rigorous imprisonment for four years. ( 2 ) THE prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows: a-l-K. Rambabu, A-2-K. Raju @ Rajan, A-3-K. Naga Raju ae the sons of A-4-K. Ratnam. PW-1 and PW-3 are brothers-in-law of pw-2. There was a dispute between the accused and PW-1 in respect of open site lying between their houses. On the night of 26-6-1997 the accused were consuming liquor in the open site adjacent lo the house of PW-1 for which PW-1 raised objection. Thereupon the accused abused PW-1 in filthy language and pushed him away. When PW-1 told A.-2 that it was not fair on their part to drink at that place. It is alleged that A-2 pushed him and stabbed him with a knife. PW-1 andl one Douglas prevented A-2. Then A-l. pushed him and brought a knife and stabbed PW-2 on the abdomen. It is further alleged that the accused pelted stones on PW-2 and others. PW-2 on receiving injuries became xinconscious. He was shifted to the Osmania Geneal Hospital for treatment. PW-8-Dr. A. K. Saxena examined PW-2 on the same night at about 10-25 and found the following injuries. 1) Stab injury of 2! cms epigastiurri with omentum expend. 2) Laceration of 2x1 cms over the right intra or bital region. He referred hirn to D. S. O. (General ). Ex. P-5 is the wound certificate issued by him. PW-6-Dr. Nagender, Deputy Surgical officer, treated PW-2 as inpatient from 26-6-1997 to 6-7-1997. Ex. P-4 is the opinion issued by the Superintendent of hospital. PW-7 Sub-Inspector of Police, Saifabad P. S. received Ex. P-1 report from PW-1 and registered a case in Crime No. 360/97 under section 307 I. P. C. and issued Ex. P-6-F. I. R. He inspected the scene of offence in the presence of PWs 4 and 5 and prepared Ex. P-2 -Observation Report. He examined PWs 1 and 3 and others and recorded their statements. . P-1 report from PW-1 and registered a case in Crime No. 360/97 under section 307 I. P. C. and issued Ex. P-6-F. I. R. He inspected the scene of offence in the presence of PWs 4 and 5 and prepared Ex. P-2 -Observation Report. He examined PWs 1 and 3 and others and recorded their statements. . He arrested the accused on 28-6-1997 and recovered a knife, which has been exhibited as M. O. I. , in pursuance of the disclosure statement of A-l in the presence of pws 4 and 5 under the cover of Ex. P-3-Panchanama. He examined PW-2 on 4-7-1997 and recorded his statement under section 161 Cr. P. C. After completing investigation, he lodged charged sheet in the Court of XV Metropolitan Magistrate, hyderabad. ( 3 ) THE learned Magistrate took the: charge sheet on file as p. R. C. No. l of 1998 and committed the case to the Metropolitan sessions Division, Hyderabad a the offence under section 307 is exclusively triable by a Court o:" Sessions. The learned Sessions judge took the case on file as S. C. No. 108 of 1998. ( 4 ) ON appearance of the accused and on hearing the prosecution and the accused, the learned Metropolitan Sessions judge framed a charge under Section 307 I. P. C. , read over and explained to them to the accused, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried. A-2 died pending trial on 12-7-1999 and accordingly the case against him stood abated, ( 5 ) TO bring home the guilt of A-l, A-3 and A-4 for the offence under Section 307 I. P. C. , prosecution examined 8 witnesses and marked 6 documents and exhibited 2 material objects. On behalf of the accused, they got marked remand report Ex. D-1 in the cross-examination of PW-7. ( 6 ) THE learned Sessions Judge, on appreciation of the evidence brought on record and on hearing the prosecution and the accused found A-l guilty for the offence under Section 307 I. P. C. and convicted him accordingly and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous imprisonment for four years while finding A-3 and A-4 not guilty for the offence under Section 307 r/w 34 I. P. C and acquitted them accordingly. Hence, this Criminal Appeal by A-l. ( 7 ) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the appellant-A-1 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant-A-1 submits that it is the prosecution parly which provoked the accused by pelting stones and therefore, the offence if any committed by A-1 is one out of grave and sudden provocation. In support of his contention, he refers the remand report, which has been marked as Ex. D-1 through PW-7. ( 9 ) LEARNED Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the evidence of PW-2 who is injured is cogent and consistent and the same is fully corroborated toy the testimony of PWs 1 and 3. ( 10 ) PW-2 is the injured, witness. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevance and efficacy. The fact that the witness sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence lends support to his testimony that he was present during occurrence. PW-8 is the doctor who medically examined PW-2 and issued Ex. P-5 wound! certificate. PW-G is the doctor who treated PW-2 in Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. The incident occurred on 26-6-1997 at about 9-45 p. m. PW-2 was shifted to the hospital by 10-25 p. m. PW-1 presented the report before the S. H. O. at 11-00 p. m. The time gap is so narrow to put. any distorted version of the incident. The fact that PW-2 sustained injuries in the occurrence: is -fully established by the prosecution : through the evidence of PWs 6 and 8. PW-2 testifies that on the date of the occurrence the accused were consuming liquor in the open space adjacent to his hoiise and therefore, he questioned the accused to stop the drinking and thereupon the accused abused him and others in filthy [language. He further testifies that the accused pushed him and another person and thereafter appellant-A-l went inside the house and brought a knife and stabbed him on his abdomen resulting bleeding injury. It is a matter of fact that the intestine of PW-2 injured came out from the abdomen. The testimonies of PWs 1 and 3 corroborate the testimony of PW-2 in all respect. It is a matter of fact that the intestine of PW-2 injured came out from the abdomen. The testimonies of PWs 1 and 3 corroborate the testimony of PW-2 in all respect. ( 11 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant-A-1 submits that the accused also sustained injuries in the incident and therefore, the prosecution party is to be categorized as aggressor and the accused party as aggrieved. A suggestion has been made to the Investigating Officer who has been examined as PW-7 that the accused received injuries in the incident. But no evidence has. been placed to probablise that the accused received injuries. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-A-1 by referring Ex. P-1 tries to contend that the prosecution party provoked the appellant-A-1. I have gone through the report presented by PW-1, which has been exhibited as Ex. P-1. It is state in the report that the accused pelted stones and thereafter the prosecution party retaliated. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant-A-1 resorted to assault PW-2 in grave and sudden provocation. Section 307 IPC reads: "307. Al. lcrnpl (o murder:- Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, iif he by that act caused death, he would be guiltiy of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is herein before mentioned". ( 12 ) IT is sufficient to justify a convic tion under Section 307 if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often give 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 the act of the accused and its result, if any. The Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstar ces mentioned in the section. The section makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstar ces mentioned in the 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. In Sarju Prasad Vs. State of bihar, AIR 1965 SC 843 it was observed that the mere fact that the injury actually inflicted by the accused did not cut any vital organ of the victim, is not itself sufficient to take the act out of the purview of Section 307 i. P. C. The above position was highlighted in State of maharashtra Vs. Balram Bama Patil, (1983)2 SCC28 girija Shankar Vs. State of U. P. , (2004) 3 SCC 793 and Vasant Vithu Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2004 AIR SCW 1523. ( 13 ) THE evidence of PW-2 is crystal clear that the appellant-A-1 with an intention to do away his life dealt a blow on his abdomen thereby intestines came out. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant-A-1 for the offence under Section 307 I. P. C. is justified. ( 14 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant-A-1 submits that the appellant-A-1 is aged about 23 years, and he is the only earning member in the family comprising himself, his wife and his children. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that sentence of imprisonment of three yeai-s would meet the ends of justice. ( 15 ) BUT, for the reduction of sentence from four years to three, years, this Criminal Appeal fails and it tis hereby dismissed. The appellant is already committed to prison consequent on cancellation of bail bonds and issuance of N. B. W.