( 1 ) THIS Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22-1-1999 passed in S. C. No. 136 of 1996 on the file of the assistant Sessions Judge, Medak whereby and where under the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found accused-Tatigari Durgaiah guilty of the offence punishable under Section 307 I. P. C. and convicted him accordingly and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for six months. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case in brief is :-PW-3-T. Ushaiah and accused-Tatigari Durgaiah are residents of Bacharam village. On 3-2-1995, PW-3 along with his brother PW-2 went to his field to graze cattle. The accused also came to the field along with cattle. The accused allowed his cattle to graze in the field of PW-3. Thereupon, PW-3 asked the accused to drive the cattle away from his field to avoid fight between his cattle and the cattle of the accused. The accused allegedly got annoyed and abused PW-3 in filthy language. He caught hold the collar of PW-3 and stabbed him with M. O. . 1-knife on left ribs. PW-1 who happened to be nearby the field came in rescue of PW-3 and prevented the accused from giving further blows. PW-2 also came in rescue of him and thereafter ran to the village to inform the incident to his parents. PW-1 shifted PW-3 to Papannapet Police station, where PW-1 presented Ex. P-l-report. LW-8-G. Anjaiah, head Constable, received Ex. P-1 report and registered a case in crime No. 10/95 under Section 307 I. P. C. and issued Ex. P-2-F. I. R. He examined PWs 1 and 2 and recorded their statements under section 161 Cr. P. C. He seot the injured-PW-3 to Government hospital for treatment. Thereafter, the injured-PW-3 was referred to Gandhi Hospital for further treatment. LW-8-G. Anjaiah inspected the scene in the presence of PW-4-Ch. Devaiah and PW-5-Machkuri Vittal. Ex. P-3 is the scene of offence panchanama. PW-6-B. V. Muralimanohar arrested the accused on 20-2-1995 and sent him for remand. PW-7-Dr. T. Sudershan Rao, Deputy Civil surgeon, Government Hospital, Medak medically examined PW-3 and noticed the following injury on his person. Incised wound over the left mid oxillery region x 1/4 communicating towards thoracic cavity. He classified the injury as simple in nature and issued Ex. P-4-wound certificate. PW-7-Dr. T. Sudershan Rao, Deputy Civil surgeon, Government Hospital, Medak medically examined PW-3 and noticed the following injury on his person. Incised wound over the left mid oxillery region x 1/4 communicating towards thoracic cavity. He classified the injury as simple in nature and issued Ex. P-4-wound certificate. After completing investigation, PW-6 laid charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jogipet. ( 3 ) THE learned Magistrate took the charge sheet on file-as p. R. C. No. 28 of 1995 and committed the case to the Sessions division, Sanga Reddy at Medak District. ( 4 ) LEARNED Sessions Judge took the case on file as S. C. No. 136 of 1996 and made over the same to the Assistant Sessions Judge at Medak for disposal according to law. ( 5 ) THE learned Assistant Sessions Judge, on hearing the prosecution and the accused, framed a charge under Section 307 i. P. C. , read over and explained the same to the accused, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. ( 6 ) TO bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 307 I. P. C. , prosecution examined 7 witnesses and proved 4 documents and exhibited one material object. On behalf of the accused, he got marked contradiction in 161 Cr. P. C. Statement of pw-3 as Ex. D-l. ( 7 ) THE learned Assistant Sessions Judge, on appreciation of the evidence brought on record and on hearing the prosecution and the accused, found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 307 I. P. C. and convicted him accordingly and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of rs. 300/- in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for six months. Hence, this criminal appeal by the accused. ( 8 ) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the accused and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 300/- in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for six months. Hence, this criminal appeal by the accused. ( 8 ) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the accused and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant-accused submits that even if the evidence of PW-3 is accepted, the offence made out is only 324 I. P. C. and not 307 I. P. C. A fur their submission has been made that the trial Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence brought on record in right perspective and thereby erred in recording the conviction of the appelltant-accused for the offence under Section 307 I. P. C. ( 10 ) LEARNED Additional Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court. ( 11 ) THE prosecution examined 7 witnesses and exhibited four documents to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 307 I. P. C. PW-3 is the injured. PWs 1 and 2 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence. PWs-4 and 5 are panch witnesses for the scene of offence. However, they did not support the case of the prosecution and the prosecution declared them hostile. PW-6 is the Sub-Inspector of Police who arrested the accused and filed a charge sheet. PW-7 is the doctor who medically examined the injured-PW-3 and issiued Ex. P-4 wound certificate. PW-3 testifies that on the date of the incident he along with his brother-PW-2 went to the field to graze his cattle and the accused also came to the filed to graze his cattle. He further testifies that he asked the accused to drive away his cattle from his field, so as to avoid fight between his cattle and the cattle of the accused, for which the accused got annoyed and abused him in filthy language, caught hold of his collar and stabbed him with M. O. 1-knife on ribs. PW-2 is brother of PW-1. He testifies that a wordly quarrel preceded the attack by the accused on PW-3. For better appreciation I may refer the relevant portion of his evidence and it is thus: "while the cattle was grazing at about 1200 noon accused also came to our fields without our permission. Then my brother Ushaiah questioned the accused as to why he allowed his cattle to graze in our fields. For better appreciation I may refer the relevant portion of his evidence and it is thus: "while the cattle was grazing at about 1200 noon accused also came to our fields without our permission. Then my brother Ushaiah questioned the accused as to why he allowed his cattle to graze in our fields. There was an exchange of words between my brother and accused. During that altercation accused picked up a chaku from his waist belt and stabbed my brother on the left side ribs. Mean time Pw-1 came to that spot. My brother immediately fell down due to bleeding injury and became unconscious. My brother-in-law pw-1, tied his towel around the rubs of my brother. On seeking Pw-1 the accused fled away from the spot. Then I ran into the village and informed the matter to my parents and villagers". ( 12 ) PW-1 also testifies in similar lines. He corroborates the testimony of PWs 2 and 3 in all material aspects. PW-7 is the doctor who medically examined PW-3 and issued Ex. P-4 wound certificate. The prosecution is able to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused gave a knife blow on PW-3 during the quarrel ensued between them over grazing of cattle in the fields. The doctor who examined PW-3 classified the injury received by him (PW-3) as simple in nature. ( 13 ) THE next question is, what is the offence committed by the appellant-accused. Whether the offence committed by him would come within the ambit of Section 307 I. P. C. or Section 324 I. P. C. ( 14 ) SECTION 307 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 circumstances mentioned in Section 307. Thus, it is sufficient to justify a conviction 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. Althougt 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. Althougt 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. In Sarju Prasad Vs. State of Bihar air 1965 SC K43: (1965) 1 Cri LJ 766 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 proposition was highlighted in State of Maharashtra Vs. Balram bama Patil (1983) 2 SCC 28 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 320, girija Shankar Vs. State of U. P. (2004) 3 SCC 793 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 863: JTT (2004) 2 SC 140 and Vasant vithu Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra (2004) 9 SCC 31 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1323: 2004 AIR SCW 1523 ( 15 ) AS can be seen from the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, the altercation between PW-3 and accused was on the spur of moment. There is no premeditation on the part of the accused in assaulting pw-3. There are no serious dispute between PW-3 and the accused so that the accused could entertain the intention of doing away the life of PW-3. The incident occurred over a petty issue on the spur of moment. The nature of injuries received by PW-3 has been classified as simple in nature. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the offence made -out against the appellant-accused would come within the ambit of section 324 I. P. C. and not Section 307 I. P. C. ( 16 ) IN the result, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant-accused for the offence under Section 307 I. P. C. and instead he is convicted for the offence under Section 324 I. P. C. and sentenced to suffer Rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of Rs. 300/ -. 300/ -. The fine amount paid by the appellant-accused for the offence under section 307 I. P. C. shall stand adjusted to the fine imposed for the offence under Section 324 I. P. C. The appellant-accused has been committed to prison consequent on cancellation of the bail granted to him by this Court on 25-7-200g. He shall serve the remainder of sentence imposed by this Court for the offence under Section 324 I. P. C.