ORAL JUDGMENT: Accused No.1 who was convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code has come up in appeal. He is sentenced to suffer imprisonment of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. The appellant hereinafter shall be referred to as accused No.1. 2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows: Accused no.1 is the resident of village Bhivsen Tola. The complainant is also the resident of same village. Accused No.1 was carrying an impression that complainant Bharat practices black magic. Since he practiced black magic the accused No.1 used to call him a quack. Accused No.1's father behaves like lunatic. The accused no.1 therefore always suspected that complainant has practiced black magic on his father. On 30.09.04 it is alleged that accused No.1 along with accused Nos. 2 and 3 were lying in wait for complainant when complainant had gone out for a stroll with his father-in-law. Accused accosted the complainant near the house of one Rajkumar Meshram. They did not say anything. Accused No.1 Raghpal immediately took out a knife and inflicted a blow on the abdomen of the complainant and he ran away. Complainant fell down. He went running at the house of one Sakharam where his wound was wrapped and he was later removed to hospital at Sakoli. From Sakoli he was referred to District Hospital where he was required to undergo operation. Police recorded the statement of the complainant. Offence came to be registered. Three accused were arrested. 3. During the course of investigation accused No.1 Raghpal made a statement that he would show the knife which he has concealed as well as the clothes. Accordingly a memorandum was prepared. Accused no.1 Raghpal discovered the knife and the blood stained clothes. After completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused persons. 4. Learned Sessions Judge framed charge against all the accused under Section 307 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. Upon consideration of the evidence tendered before him he found the accused No.1 Raghpal guilty of the offence punishable under Section 307 and sentenced him to imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were acquitted. Accused No.1, therefore, has preferred this appeal. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused No.1 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State have also perused the record. 6. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were acquitted. Accused No.1, therefore, has preferred this appeal. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused No.1 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State have also perused the record. 6. As many as 13 witnesses are examined by the prosecution. Out of them P. W. 1 Bharat the complainant and P. W. 2 Rama are the eye witnesses, P. W. 3 Sakharam is uncle of Bharat, P. W. 4 Tara is the wife of Bharat, P. Ws. 5 to 7 are Panchas, P. W. 8 is Home Guard on duty while P. W. 9 is Medical Officer, P. W. 10 and 11 are also the Panchas, P. W. 12 is the Investigating Officer and P. W. 13 is again a Medical Officer who had operated upon the injuries sustained by Bharat. 7. It is in the evidence of P. W. 1 Bharat that he had gone for a stroll with his father-in-law when accused No.1/appellant came and stabbed him with a knife on the stomach and ran away with the knife. He states that he went to the house of his uncle Sakharam who wrapped the wound on his stomach. It is also in the evidence that he was then removed to the hospital by Sakharam. P.W.1 Bharat has also stated that he was assaulted by the accused No.1 on account of the fact that he suspected that he (complainant) practices black magic. It has been suggested to P.W. 1 Bharat in the cross examination that his father-in-law immediately ran away when he was assaulted. It is further suggested that accused No.1 ran away after complainant fell down. Both these suggestions have been accepted by P.W.1 Bharat. These suggestions to witness i.e. the injured Bharat clearly go to show that in fact accused does not dispute his presence on the spot and even the assault on the injured Bharat. It is suggested to the witness further that he fell in the gutter and suffered injuries by an iron rod. The suggestion is denied by P. W. 1. P. W. 9 Dr. Pradeep who had examined the complainant denies that such injury can be caused by iron rod. Thus the possibility of such injury being caused by piercing of iron rod has to be ruled out. The contents of F. I. R. Ex. 39 corroborate the version of P. W. 1. P. W. 9 Dr. Pradeep who had examined the complainant denies that such injury can be caused by iron rod. Thus the possibility of such injury being caused by piercing of iron rod has to be ruled out. The contents of F. I. R. Ex. 39 corroborate the version of P. W. 1. There is nothing in the cross examination of P. W. 1 to discard his evidence. 8. P. W. 3 Sakharam the uncle of P. W. 1 Bharat has stated that Bharat came to his house at 6 p.m. in an injured condition and he lied down on the cot immediately. He states further that he wrapped the injury with Dupatta and removed him to the hospital. He also states that complainant disclosed to him that accused No. 1 had assaulted him with a knife. Thus immediately after the assault P.W.1 disclosed the incident to P.W.3. There is also nothing in the evidence of P. W. 3 Sakharam to discredit him. 9. Although P. W. 2 Rama was said to be with the complainant Bharat at the time of incident his evidence shows that he gives an improved version. He had not stated before the police the name of the accused no.1 as the assailant. This is a material contradiction. His evidence, therefore, is of no help. But the evidence of P. W. 1 and 2 is enough to attribute the injury on the person of Bharat to the accused No.1 Raghpal. 10. The evidence of P. W. 1 is further corroborated by the fact that spot panchanama Ex. 46 shows that blood stains were found on the spot of occurrence. Blood stained earth was seized by the Investigating Officer. Clothes of the complainant were also seized vide Ex. 50 and blood sample was also collected vide Ex. 52. The Chemical Analyser's report Ex. 75 shows that the blood stains on these articles were of the blood group 'B' and even the blood group of injured is also 'B'. The knife blade had blood stains of blood group 'B'. All these facts further corroborate the version of P. W. 1 Bharat. Not only the circumstantial evidence is available but there is also further evidence available to corroborate the prosecution story. The knife blade had blood stains of blood group 'B'. All these facts further corroborate the version of P. W. 1 Bharat. Not only the circumstantial evidence is available but there is also further evidence available to corroborate the prosecution story. P. W. 12 P. S. I. Gadekar states that he had questioned the accused No.1 Raghpal when he was under arrest and he stated that he would show the blood stained clothes as well as the knife kept at the house of his maternal uncle. It is in the evidence of P. S. I. Gadekar that the accused had lead the panchas and the police to the house of his maternal uncle and he took out the blood stained knife from beneath the deck. The said knife has been seized. As stated earlier the knife had blood stains of blood group B which is the blood group of injured. Thus the weapon of the offence has been recovered at the instance of the present accused/appellant. His clothes were also seized which had blood stains of blood group B. 11. Shri Patwardhan the learned counsel for the accused/appellant contended that the case does not fall within the scope of Section 307 of Indian Penal Code since the injury was not serious, it was not on vital part and only one injury was inflicted. He submitted that, therefore, it could safely be inferred that the accused never intended to cause death. P.W. 13 Dr. Shekhar states that injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and was serious. The injury was caused on the stomach and the omentum/abducen had come out. Evidence of P. W. 13 shows that injury was on the epigastric region and there was circulatory failure due to the injury. His evidence also shows that patient was required to be operated at midnight. This circumstance also goes to show that injury was of a serious nature and the knife must have been thrust with a force. Panchanama Ex. 68 shows that the length of the blade of knife was 18 cm. The length of the blade was also considerable. It was thrust in the stomach and considering the force used and length of the blade of the knife it must be said that the accused intended to cause death and also had a knowledge that such injury can cause death. The length of the blade was also considerable. It was thrust in the stomach and considering the force used and length of the blade of the knife it must be said that the accused intended to cause death and also had a knowledge that such injury can cause death. Both, intention as well as knowledge can therefore be attributed to the accused. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, did not commit any error in convicting the accused under Section 307 Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel submitted that only one injury was inflicted and considering this aspect the sentence imposed on the accused is too harsh. Accused has been sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years. Looking to the nature of the injury and the fact that only one injury was inflicted I find that the sentence of 5 years would be adequate. In the circumstances the appeal partly succeeds. Conviction of the accused/appellant under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code is confirmed. Accused/appellant shall undergo imprisonment for a period of 5 years instead of 7 years. The sentence of fine stands confirmed.