JUDGMENT:- This is an appeal by accused, who was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. 2. The facts short of details are as under:- On 2-3-1997, complainant Gogarayya had gone to the house of the accused being son of his friend. When he went there, the wife of the accused and the mother were present. They requested the complainant to take dinner with them. However, he did not take dinner. Accused Janardan came under influence of liquor at home around 8 p.m. and asked his wife to serve dinner to him. When she served the dinner, the accused started abusing her. When the mother of accused, Bhagubai, questioned as to why the accused was abusing his wife, he dealt a slap to his mother. He started beating his wife. The wife of the accused came outside the house. The complainant was sitting on a cot outside the house. Accused Janardan I came out of the house with a knife and wanted to assault his wife. She avoided the blow, however, she sustained injury to her finger. The complainant said to accused that since he, i.e. complainant, had come as a guest, it was not it proper to beat his wife. On this, the accused went near the complainant and inflicted a blow is on his neck with the knife. The complainant shouted. The neighbours came and they removed the complainant to the hospital. The complainant was treated in the hospital. He lodged report with the police. Accused was arrested. He discovered the knife with which he had caused injury to the complainant. The spot panchanama was drawn and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused. 3. The Judicial Magistrate (FC) committed the accused to the Court of Sessions. The Sessions Judge framed the charge against the accused, which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. After recording the evidence, the Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P. Code and sentenced him accordingly. 4. The prosecution has examined only five witnesses and out of them PW-1 Sumitra and PW-3 - Gogarayya, the complainant, are the eye-witnesses. PW-2Kanhu is a panch while PW -4 - Dr. After recording the evidence, the Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P. Code and sentenced him accordingly. 4. The prosecution has examined only five witnesses and out of them PW-1 Sumitra and PW-3 - Gogarayya, the complainant, are the eye-witnesses. PW-2Kanhu is a panch while PW -4 - Dr. Deorao Holi is the Medical Officer and PW-5 - Sadashiv Gayekar is the Investigating Officer. 5. PW-l- Sumitra, though is an eyewitness, did not make a clean breast and as such was declared hostile by the prosecution. Sumitra is wife of the accused. The incident is very short and, in fact, it is not disputed that the accused is the author of the injury sustained by the complainant. However, it would be necessary to discuss here what the witness Gograyya has to say. This would not only help show that the accused is the author but would also help arrive at a conclusion whether case falls under Section 307 of I.P. Code or any other lesser kind of offence. 6. PW-3 - Gogarayya has deposed that he had gone to the house of accused at Chapalwada. He states that while he was there, the accused came home under influence of liquor and beat his wife. He also states that when he was sitting on cot accused came, sat on his (Gogarayya's) legs and inflicted to blow on the neck with knife. He goes on to testify that he then went to the neighbour's house who brought him to the hospital. PW-l Sumitra the wife of the accused does not dispute that the complainant had come to their house and he suffered injury, although she has turned hostile. It is suggested to PW-3 Gogarayya that when he intervened in the quarrel between the accused and his wife, he fell down on the edge of Ghamela (iron basket). This suggestion is not only denied by the complainant (PW-3) but even by Medical Officer (PW-4). If we read the cross-examination of PW-3 Gogarayya, it would be clear that he has not faltered any where and there is no infirmity in his testimony at all. The evidence of the Medical Officer also supports the version of PW-3 - Gogarayya that he had suffered injury on his neck with the knife. If we read the cross-examination of PW-3 Gogarayya, it would be clear that he has not faltered any where and there is no infirmity in his testimony at all. The evidence of the Medical Officer also supports the version of PW-3 - Gogarayya that he had suffered injury on his neck with the knife. The Medical Officer has denied the suggestion that such a injury can be caused by fall on the iron basket. There is no manner of doubt that the accused is the author of the injury. 7. The charge is one under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Shri. Bhide, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused, contended that the accused had no intention to kill and he had dealt only a single blow and it was because of the fact that he had intervened in the quarrel between husband and wife. He submitted that case would at the most fall under section 324 of Indian Penal Code. He also submitted that it was not a grievous hurt at all nor was it dangerous to life. The evidence of PW-4 Dr. Deorao does disclose that the injury was grievous, in as much as it shows that it would take 15 to 20 days to heal. The case, therefore, would fall in clause 6 of Section 320 of I.P. Code. It was contended that Doctor does not certify it to be dangerous. It is unfortunately not so elicited from the doctor but the fact remains that the injury was caused over the neck - a most vital part of the body. The length of the injury was 4 inches and breadth 1 inch. It is, therefore, apparent that it was a gapping wound. If there was a gapping wound on the neck, it has to be said that it was dangerous to life. 8. The evidence does disclose that the injury was caused by accused. The location of the injury in this case plays a vital part. The nature of injury as discussed above, was certainly grievous and was, in fact, dangerous. The fact that after sitting on legs of complainant a blow was inflicted on the neck itself suggests that the accused did choose a vital part of the body for inflicting the injury and that makes his intention to kill the complainant clear. The nature of injury as discussed above, was certainly grievous and was, in fact, dangerous. The fact that after sitting on legs of complainant a blow was inflicted on the neck itself suggests that the accused did choose a vital part of the body for inflicting the injury and that makes his intention to kill the complainant clear. It can also be said, looking to the part chosen, that the accused knew that it is likely to cause death. Although no further injury is caused, it cannot be said that he had no intention to cause death. To my mind, the manner of causing injury and the place chosen by the accused discloses intention as well as knowledge. The learned judge of the lower court, therefore, rightly held the accused guilty under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code. There is no merit in the appeal. It is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.