JUDGMENT 1. Appellant has been convicted under section 307 of IPC and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default rigorous imprisonment for six months by the then VI Additional 'Sessions Judge, Bhopal, in ST No. 99/1985 decided on 5.2.1991. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. According to prosecution, on 25.2.1985 at noon time there was an altercation between the appellant and his father-in-law Kashiram in which the complainant had intervened and thereafter complainant Ramesh went to his work. When complainant Ramesh returned from his work and was lying down in his jhuggi after taking food, at about 9:30 p.m. he was called outside by the appellant through one Suresh. As soon as complainant Ramesh reached near the jhuggi of Rampyaribai, where the appellant was standing, appellant assaulted him with a knife on his head twice with intent to kill him and thereby caused injuries on his head. Immediately Suresh and Bhagwandas rushed there and rescued the complainant. In the mean time appellant escaped and ran away with the knife. 3. Complainant Ramesh lodged the FIR in the Police Station Govindpura, Bhopal. Then he was sent for medical examination by the police. Complainant also remained hospitalised for some time due to injuries inflicted on his scalp. The blood-stained earth and plain earth were seized by police during investigation. Appellant was also arrested and the knife used in the commission of the offence was seized at his instance. After other usual investigation, appellant was prosecuted by Police Station Govindpura under section 307 of IPC and was put to trial. 4. Appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication due to enmity. 5. The learned trial Court, on the basis of the evidence adduced in the case, found the appellant guilty under section 307 of IPC and sentenced as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 6. Appeal is preferred inter alia on the ground that the learned trial Court has erroneously convicted the appellant under section 307 of IPC and has wrongly disbelieved the defence evidence. 7. Arguments of both the sides were heard. Record of the lower Court perused. 8. It is evident from the testimony of complainant Ramesh (PW6) that the appellant had assaulted him with a knife on his head at the relevant time. 7. Arguments of both the sides were heard. Record of the lower Court perused. 8. It is evident from the testimony of complainant Ramesh (PW6) that the appellant had assaulted him with a knife on his head at the relevant time. Complainant Ramesh (PW6) categorically stated in his deposition that on the day of the incident when he was lying down at about 9:00 or 9:30 p.m., he was called outside by the appellant through a person named Suresh and when the complainant went to the appellant near the jhuggi of Rampyaribai, appellant assaulted him with a knife over his scalp and thereby caused injuries over his head. Complainant Ramesh further deposed that on his shouting for help Suresh and Bhagwandas came for his rescue and the appellant fled away in the mean time. 9. PW7 Bhagwandas and PW8 Suresh have also supported the aforesaid version of the complainant. Both of them have testified that the appellant had called out the complainant and then assaulted him with knife over his scalp at night between 9:00 or 9:30 p.m. 10. The FIR (Ex.P-6) lodged by the complainant soon after the incident, which was recorded by Sub-Inspector, Prem Narayan Singh (PW9), at Police Station Govindpura also lends support to the version of the complainant. Complainant's testimony is also supported by the medical evidence. Dr. S.K. Agrawal (PW3), who had examined complainant Ramesh on 25.2.1985 at 10:10 p.m. found an incised wound over his scalp extending from left parietal region to occipital region in mid line admeasuring 4" x 1"x 1/2" bleeding profusely. According to Dr. S.K. Agrawal (PW3) the general condition of the patient was low and he was admitted to the surgical ward and referred to surgical specialist. In the opinion of Dr. S.K. Agrawal (PW3) the injury over the scalp of the complainant could have proved fatal because of the excessive bleeding, had he not attended the hospital in time for proper treatment. 11. Dr. Kewal Krishna Tussoo (PW4), who gave initial treatment to the complainant on his admission and also examined him, also opined, on a query made by the police, that as the patient had bled profusely there was danger to his life. 12. 11. Dr. Kewal Krishna Tussoo (PW4), who gave initial treatment to the complainant on his admission and also examined him, also opined, on a query made by the police, that as the patient had bled profusely there was danger to his life. 12. As regards the defence evidence, the appellant examined his father-in-law Kashiram (PW 1) and his neighbour Rampyaribai (PW2), but the evidence of these defence witnesses does not shatter the positive evidence given by complainant Ramesh (PW6) and his witnesses the appellant. DW 1 Kashiram simply said that he had no knowledge at all of any quarrel or incident between the appellant and complainant Ramesh. DW2 Rampyaribai also claimed to have never heard of any incident having taken place between the appellant and complainant Ramesh. She also admitted in her cross-examination that if any incident had taken place while she was sleeping, she could not have heard it. Both these witnesses also have not claimed to be present on the scene of occurrence. 13. On the other hand, there are no cogent reasons to discard the entire prosecution evidence. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that Suresh (PW8) has stated in para 6 of his cross-examination that Bhawandas (PW7) was not present with him which creates doubt as to the whole prosecution case. Now, both Bhagwandas (PQ7) and Suresh (PW8) have been named in the FIR (Ex.P-6) as eye-witnesses, therefore, the presence of PW7 Bhagwandas can hardly be doubted on the scene of occurrence. More so, even if it is assumed that PW7 Bhagwandas was not present, as stated by PW 8 Suresh, then complainant's version given against the appellant is duly and substantially corroborated by the evidence of PW8 Suresh himself, who is an independent witness. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that PW8 Suresh stated that the recovery of the knife was made at the instance of the appellant after two days of the incident, while as per evidence given by Sub-Inspector Prem Narayan Singh (PW9) the alleged recovery of knife at the instance of the appellant was made after a period of 15 days. But it is noteworthy that PW8 Suresh was examined in the case after a long span of more than one year and therefore his statement as to the recovery of knife after two days of the incident might be due to the lapse of memory and such a statement does not affect or create any doubt as to the whole prosecution case. 15. The learned counsel for the appellant also argued that according to the seizure memo Ex.P-11 rusted knife was allegedly seized and there were no blood stains on the knife, as such the use of weapon by the appellant was also doubtful. But it has come in the evidence of Sub-Inspector, Prem Narayan Singh (PW9), who had made the recovery of the knife, that appellant had dug it out from beneath the bathing stone and therefore the possibility of the knife being rusted beneath the bathing stone cannot be overlooked. 16. Be that as it may, the absence of the blood stain on the knife is not very significant in face of the direct evidence available on the record that appellant stabbed the complainant with a knife over his scalp, which also finds corroboration from the medical evidence. 17. In fact there are no reasons to doubt the veracity and the credibility of the complainant's version that the appellant called the complainant outside and assaulted him with a knife over his scalp, which is also supported by medical evidence produced on record. There are no reasons to discard the medical evidence as well. There is nothing on record to show, as suggested in the cross-examination of Dr. S.K. Agrawal (PW3), that the complainant sustained the injuries over his scalp by fall over broken glass piece. 18. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued, that there has been no fracture in the skull of the complainant nor his injuries were dangerous to life arid there was no intention on the part of the appellant to cause the death of the appellant, as such no case under section 307 of IPC was proved against the appellant. 19. Now, both the doctors examined by the prosecution namely Dr. S.K. Agrawal (PW3) and Dr. Kewal Krishna Thussoo (PW4) have opined that because of the excessive bleeding the injury over the scalp of the complainant could have proved fatal and there was danger to his life. 19. Now, both the doctors examined by the prosecution namely Dr. S.K. Agrawal (PW3) and Dr. Kewal Krishna Thussoo (PW4) have opined that because of the excessive bleeding the injury over the scalp of the complainant could have proved fatal and there was danger to his life. There are no reasons to disagree with the opinion of the doctors. There are no reasons to disbelieve the statement of Dr. S.K. Agrawal (PW3) that when he first examined the complainant his general condition was low and the incised wound found over his scalp was bleeding profusely. The mere fact that the wound of the complainant was stitched and the bleeding had subsequently stopped does not mitigate the fact that the wound over the scalp sustained by the complainant had bled profusely and it thus endangered his life. Thus, the hurt caused to the complainant was a grievous hurt within the meaning of clause 8 of section 320 of IPC. In view of the aforesaid discussion it is found duly established that the appellant caused grievous hurt over the scalp of the complainant with a knife. 20. That apart, as observed by the apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil reported in AIR 1983 SC 305 and reiterated in the case of State of M.P. v. Saleem @ Chamaru and another reported in 2006(1) Vidhi Bhasvar 134= (2005)5 SCC 554 to justify a conviction under section 307 of IPC, it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted or injury actually caused to the victim of assault should be sufficient under the ordinary circumstances to cause death of the person assaulted. What the Court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. The requisite intent or intention has to be gathered or deduced from the circumstances brought forth in the case. 21. Now, it has come in the evidence of the complainant namely Ramesh (PW6) that prior to the incident of stabbing by the appellant, there was an altercation or quarrel between the appellant and his father-in-law Kashiram in which complainant had intervened. 21. Now, it has come in the evidence of the complainant namely Ramesh (PW6) that prior to the incident of stabbing by the appellant, there was an altercation or quarrel between the appellant and his father-in-law Kashiram in which complainant had intervened. It is also found established that the appellant had called the complainant outside at night and then assaulted him with a knife over his scalp causing an incised wound admeasuring 4"x 1"x 1/2" which bled profusely and endangered his life, which is indicative of the fact that the act of the appellant was pre-planned and well intended. Therefore, when the appellant came to the complainant in a planned way and gave him a knife blow on his vital part like scalp and caused grievous injury over his head of a considerable length, which endangered his life, it is ipso facto clear and obvious that the appellant inflicted the knife blow over the scalp of the complainant with intent to kill him. Hence, the learned trial Court committed no error in finding the appellant guilty under section 307 IPC. The conviction of the appellant under section 307 of IPC recorded by the learned trial Court, therefore, deserves to be maintained. 22. As a necessary corollary, the offence under section 307 of IPC being non-compoundable under section 320 of CrPC, the application for composition filed herein by the appellant and another Omprakash Yadav, the son of the deceased complainant and also the other application for composition subsequently filed by all the legal representatives of deceased complainant Rameshkumar being untenable in view of the mandate under section 320(9) of CrPC deserve to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. 23. As regards the sentence, the term of rigorous imprisonment for three years awarded to the appellant by the learned trial Court with a fine of Rs.2,000/- is not excessive for an offence under section 307 of IPC. However, the incident of the case herein is as old as 25.2.1985 and complainant Ramesh has also since expired. The legal representatives of deceased complainant Ramesh have also compromised the matter with the appellant outside the Court. In the aforesaid circumstances/reduction of jail sentence to some extent would not be unjustified; the ends of justice would be met, if the impugned sentence of imprisonment is reduced by one year. 24. This appeal is therefore, partly allowed. The legal representatives of deceased complainant Ramesh have also compromised the matter with the appellant outside the Court. In the aforesaid circumstances/reduction of jail sentence to some extent would not be unjustified; the ends of justice would be met, if the impugned sentence of imprisonment is reduced by one year. 24. This appeal is therefore, partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant under section 307 IPC is maintained. However, the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to him by the trial Court is modified to the extent mentioned hereinabove. Consequently, the appellant shall now suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under section 307 IPC. The sentence of fine imposed on the appellant by the trial Court shall stand maintained. Appeal is accordingly disposed of.