Judgment :- 1. This application is filed praying to quash and set aside the judgment dated 26-8-2005 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No.11/98. 2. The prosecution story is as under:- The incident in question took place on 24-6-1995. On the day of incident i.e. on 24-6-1995 in the evening at about 10.00 p.m. Shriram Kachru Sahare (PW 1) was at his house. The accused persons are residing opposite to the house of PW 1 Shriram. At the relevant time, the accused No.1 Vasanta went to the house of PW 1 Shriram and asked him why Shriram was giving his house on rent by young boys. In reply Shriram said to accused No.1 that, he would also give his house on rent to four sons of Vasantaaccused No.1, if so required. On that the accused No.2 got annoyed and enraged. On that day, at about 10.30 p.m. the accused No.1 armed with lathi, the accused No.3 and delinquent Sharad armed with ballies along with accused No.2 armed with knife went at the house of Shriram and started quarreling with Shriram. The prosecutrix was at the house of Shriram and she was saying accused No.1 not to beat Shriram. On that, the accused No.1 Manoj asked the victim while she intervening in the quarrel. On that, the accused No.2 took out a knife and gave 2/3 stab on the abdomen on the victim and ran away from the spot. The prosecutrix collapsed on the ground, the accused No.1 gave fist blow on the face of the prosecutrix, the accused No.3 and delinquent Sharad also beat with ballies to Smt. Jyoti. The accused persons dropped the weapons and stick at the spot of occurrence and ran away from the spot. The prosecutrix and victim i.e. Smt. Jyoti was immediately shifted and admitted in S.D. Hospital, Ganesh Nagar, Nagpur. Dr. Anjankar (PW5) examined the victim, attended and operated the stab wounds on Smt. Jyoti and gave information on telephone to P.S.O., Kotwali about the sustaining injuries by Smt. Jyoti. The P.S.O. Gaikwad went to the hospital and after obtaining the report of Dr. Anjankar that the victim was in a position to give her statement, recorded the statement i.e. F.I.R. Exh.57 as per her dictation. The P.S.O. Gaikwad went to the hospital and after obtaining the report of Dr. Anjankar that the victim was in a position to give her statement, recorded the statement i.e. F.I.R. Exh.57 as per her dictation. He came to the Police Station and registered the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on 25-6-1995 at 00.10 hours vide Exh.78. The Investigation Officer prepared the spot panchanama Exh.47 and made arrest of the accused on 25-6-1995 vide arrest panchanama Exh.48. 3. In pursuance of the information of accused No.2 Manoj, the Investigation Officer has seized the weapon of the offence i.e. knife under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Investigation Officer has sent the accused persons for collection of blood samples to the hospital and seized blood samples under seizure panchanama Exh.50. The Investigation Officer has also seized the clothes of Smt. Jyoti i.e. blouse, knicker, petticoat, Saree and brassiere. These were on the person of the victim at the time of incident and prepared the seizure panchanama. 4. After obtaining the injury report Exh.60 from Dr. Anjankar, the samples and clothes were sent to C.A. for analysis and report. The Investigation Officer recorded the statement of witnesses and after completion of other formalities of investigation the officer incharge of the Police Station, Kotwali, Nagpur, has sent chargesheet under Section 173 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to the Chief Judicial Magistrate and separate chargesheet against delinquent Sharad to the Juvenile Court. 5. The Chief Judicial Magistrate was pleased to commit the case to the Court of Sessions as per Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The charge Exh.36 of the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused No.2 and for the offence under Section 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused Nos. 1 and 3 came to be framed. The accused persons denied their complexity in crime and for trial. 6. The 8th Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagpur by his judgment and order dated 23rd January, 1998 convicted the accused No.1 Vasanta, accused No.2-Manoj and accused No.3 Vishwapal for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused persons denied their complexity in crime and for trial. 6. The 8th Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagpur by his judgment and order dated 23rd January, 1998 convicted the accused No.1 Vasanta, accused No.2-Manoj and accused No.3 Vishwapal for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused No.1 Vasanta was convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500, in default of fine S.I. for 3 months. The accused No.2 Manoj who is the present applicant is convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500, in default S.I. for 3 months. The accused No.3 is convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default S.I. for 1 month. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the 8th Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagpur, the present applicant along with two accused filed Criminal Appeal No.11/98. By the judgment and order dated 26th August, 2005 the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur partly allowed the appeal. Conviction of original accused Nos. 1 and 3 for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside and they were acquitted of the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Appeal in respect of accused No.2 Manoj came to be dismissed and his conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code came to be confirmed. Hence, this Criminal Revision Application is filed by the applicant Manoj, who is original accused No.2 challenging the judgment and order passed by the 8th Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No.372 of 1995 and judgment an order passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No.11/98. 8. Though the number of grounds are taken in the revision, the learned Advocate appearing for the applicant restricted his arguments only on two aspects i.e. (1) nature of injury, and (2) whether the applicant had intention to assault and kill injured Smt. Jyoti. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant submitted that P.W.2 Jyoti Meshram was in the business of illicit liquor and she was hardened criminal and Smt. Jyoti Meshram came with the preparation of causing assault on the applicant/accused. 9. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant submitted that P.W.2 Jyoti Meshram was in the business of illicit liquor and she was hardened criminal and Smt. Jyoti Meshram came with the preparation of causing assault on the applicant/accused. 9. It is further submitted that the evidence of Smt. Jyoti was full of contraventions and omissions and did not inspire any confidence, therefore, it was totally unsafe to pass conviction on her testimony. It is further submitted that P.W.3 Dr. Anjankar stated in his evidence that injury on the body of Smt. Jyoti was caused by a single stab wound and there were no other injuries on her body. He also stated that abdomen was fleshy part of the body. Dr. Anjankar in his evidence further stated that he has not stated the nature of injury as a simple injury or a grievance injury in the certificate which was filed at Exh.16. Therefore, there was no evidence about nature of injury on the body of P.W.2. It is further submitted that in F.I.R. it is submitted that she was beaten by ballies and knife by the accused persons. However, there were no injury mark on her body about the injuries caused by the ballies. Therefore, her F.I.R. itself false and consequently it was totally unsafe to base conviction on the sole testimony of PW 2 and other witnesses were interested witnesses, therefore, their statements should not have been accepted. 10. It is further submitted that the applicant never had an intention either to assault or kill Smt. Jyoti. The learned Advocate further submitted that there is nothing brought on record by the prosecution to infer that, there was intention on the part of the applicant to assault the complainant. It is further submitted that assuming for a moment that there was an assault by the applicant by knife on abdomen on the person of Smt. Jyoti, the certificate issued by Doctor Anjankar does not say that the injuries are grievous in nature. The learned Advocate further submitted that on perusal of the medical evidence, it appears that there was only one injury. The learned Advocate further submitted that the prosecution story that two to three blows are given by the applicant is totally concocted in fact there was only one injury. The learned Advocate further submitted that on perusal of the medical evidence, it appears that there was only one injury. The learned Advocate further submitted that the prosecution story that two to three blows are given by the applicant is totally concocted in fact there was only one injury. The learned Advocate relying on the report submits that on perusal of the injuries mentions, those appear to be simple in nature. Therefore, the learned Advocate submits that when the injuries are simple in nature, there is no question of invoking provisions of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 11. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant further submitted that, the prosecutrix had come to the house of Shriram, in fact the applicant along with other accused, they were in the house of Shriram and even if prosecution story is taken as it is, they intended to assault Shriram and not the prosecutrix Smt. Jyoti. Therefore, the learned Advocate submits that without admitting but assuming that there is an assault by knife on the abdomen of the prosecutrix by the applicant, such was unintentional and on spur of moment. Therefore, at the most case of the applicant may fall under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted that, if the other co-accused are acquitted from the charges under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, the present applicant should have been given benefit along with other accused persons. There was only one stab would on the abdomen and there were no three blows have given by the applicant as alleged by the prosecution. It is further submitted that the maximum what could have been alleged against the applicant is only simple hurt. 12. The sum and substance of the argument of the learned Advocate of the applicant is that, since there is no mention in the injury certificate, whether the said injury is simple or grievous, the conviction of the applicant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable. The second argument is that there was no intention on the part of the applicant to assault the prosecutrix and assuming that there was assault by the applicant by the prosecutrix, the said assault was a spur of moment without any intention, therefore, at the most his case may fall under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The second argument is that there was no intention on the part of the applicant to assault the prosecutrix and assuming that there was assault by the applicant by the prosecutrix, the said assault was a spur of moment without any intention, therefore, at the most his case may fall under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Advocate in support of his contention invited my attention to the reported judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Case of Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar reported in 1965 SC 843. The learned Advocate invited my attention to para 3 of the said judgment and submitted that – “The act done must be an act done under such circumstances that death might be caused if the act took effect, that is to say, the act must be capable causing death in the natural and ordinary course of things.” 13. The learned Advocate further invited my attention to Paragraph 9 of the said judgment and submitted that, “the injury was not inflicted on a vital part of the body”, therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant has assaulted the complainant with such a force to cause grievous injury which would result into death of the prosecutrix. The learned Advocate further submitted that the burden was on the prosecution to prove their case convincingly, which the prosecution has failed to discharge, there is no mention in the injury certificate about the nature of the injury. 14. The learned Advocate further invited my attention to the reported judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh and others in Criminal Appeal No.74 and 75 of 1986 decided on 25-8-1988. The learned Advocate relying on Paragraph 7 of the said judgment and submits that - “Under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code 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 that section. The intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary constitute murder. Without this ingredient being established, there can be no offence of “attempt to murder”. 15. The learned Advocate further invited my attention to the reported judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pashora Singh and another v. State of Punjab reported in 1993 Cri. Without this ingredient being established, there can be no offence of “attempt to murder”. 15. The learned Advocate further invited my attention to the reported judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pashora Singh and another v. State of Punjab reported in 1993 Cri. L.J. 1053 and submitted that- “When the injuries are found to be simple in nature, that the accused persons had no intention of causing death of any person nor any injury found on deceased was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. Therefore, the learned Advocate submits that in the instant case also the nature of injury is simple and the punishment awarded by the Courts below is disproportionate. 16. The learned Advocate further invited my attention to the reported judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dharma Pal and others vs. State of Punjab reported in 1993 Cri.L.J. 2856 and more particularly paragraph 5 and submitted that, in that case the Court considering the facts of that case have reduced sentence under Section 307 to five years R.I.” 17. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant further invited my attention to the reported judgment of this Court in case of State of Maharashtra vs. Gulabsingh and others reported in 1978 Bombay 367 and more particularly, paragraph 5 of the said judgment which reads thus – “It is well established that the prosecution must prove; (1) that the death of human being was attempted; (2) that such death was attempted to be caused by, or in consequence of, the act of the accused; (3) that such was act with the intention of causing death, or that it was done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as (a) the accused knew to be likely to cause death; (b) was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; or that the accused attempted to cause such death by doing an act known to him to be so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause (a) death, or (b) such bodily injury as it likely to cause death, the accused having no excuse for incurring the risk of causing such death or injury”. 18. 18. The learned Advocate further invited my attention to the reported case of this Court in case of Rajendra Narayan Nalawade v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2001(1) Mh.L.J. 478 and submitted that - “Attempt to murder. The words “whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death” require court to take into consideration relevant circumstances whether there has been an attempt to commit an offence of murder.” The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant invited my attention to Paragraph 8 of the said judgment and submitted that – “The first is that the accused had intention or knowledge to commit murder, and, secondly the overt act done by him was capable of causing death.” 19. The learned Advocate appearing for applicant further invited my attention to the reported judgment of this Court in case of Ashok Nagorao Chaudhari vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2001(2) Mh.L.J. 31 and submitted that, “If all the injuries on the person of the complainant are simple in nature and if the single blow is given in that case no offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is made out and in the instant case the Court altered the offence from Section 307 to Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code.” 20. Therefore, the learned Advocate submits that taking into consideration the pronouncements by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the instant case also no offence is made out under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Without admitting but assuming that the applicant has committed the offence, on the given set of evidence his case may fall under Section 324 and not under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Advocate further invited my attention to the dictionary meaning of the words used in medical certificate about nature of injuries and submitted that, those injuries were simple in nature. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant submitted that the judgment and order impugned in this application may be set aside and applicant be acquitted from all charges. In the alternative the Advocate submitted that the offence and sentence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code may be altered and it may be held that the offence in question is under Section 324 and not under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. In the alternative the Advocate submitted that the offence and sentence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code may be altered and it may be held that the offence in question is under Section 324 and not under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 21. The learned APP appearing for the State submitted that the evidence of Smt. Jyoti (PW 2) victim of the assault is corroborated by the evidence of Indirabai (PW 4), Krushna (PW 5) and independent witness Shriram (PW 1). They have also identified of the weapon used by the accused i.e. knife (Article 2) and ballies (Article 10) and they are eye witnesses of the occurrence. There is no incriminating evidence in their testimonies to disbelieve or disregard the same. The legal evidence also corroborates with the version of the victim. The C.A. Report also corroborates the prosecution case on material particulars. Therefore, the learned APP would submit that this revision may not be entertained. He placed reliance on the reported judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of M.P. v. Kashiram and others 2009 (3) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 107. On the basis of the said judgment, he submitted that, “it is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim of the assault should be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause death. It is sufficient in law, if the act was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section.” 22. The learned APP further submitted that if the over all evidence is taken into account and the injury inflicted by the applicant on abdomen, it is clear that the said assault was with full knowledge and intention to kill the complainant Smt. Jyoti. Therefore, the learned APP submits that when the assault by knife with force and that too on abdomen would clearly discloses the intention of the applicant that he wanted to inflict the grievous injury so as to result the same in death of the complainant. 23. The learned APP further submitted that there is also recovery of knife which is 6” in length and having 8” handle. Therefore, the learned APP submits that this is a fit case in which this Court may not exercise revisional powers as to upset concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. 24. 23. The learned APP further submitted that there is also recovery of knife which is 6” in length and having 8” handle. Therefore, the learned APP submits that this is a fit case in which this Court may not exercise revisional powers as to upset concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. 24. I have heard the learned Advocate for the applicant at great length and learned APP for the State. At this juncture, it would be appropriate and relevant to refer to the reported judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Raj Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in (2008) II SCC 76, in which the Hon’ble Apex Court has commented about the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction by the High Court. The paragraph 10 of the said judgment reads thus:- “In State of Orissa v. Nakula Sahu it was held that the High Court should not have interfered with the concurrent findings recorded by the trial court and the Sessions Judge in exercise of revisional jurisdiction when there was no error of fact or law arrived at by the trial court or the Sessions Judge.” 25. The learned Advocate for the applicant has restricted his arguments only on two aspects of the matter i.e. injury and intention of the applicant. So far as first aspect about the injuries caused due to assault by the applicant on abdomen of the complainant is concerned, the PW 3 Dr. Deepak Anjankar has testified that on 24th June 1995 Smt. Jyoti was admitted in his hospital at about 10.30 p.m. She was operated for abdomen stab injury in his presence and he has given anesthesia to her. He has examined the victim of assault and on examination he found injuries, penetrating injury to abdomen about 1.1/2” on 3” interolateral to the umbilicus on left side. The complainant was operated for the same on 24th June, 1995 at about 10-45 p.m. under ITGCE, abdomen was opened. There were small three injuries about ½” X 1/3” length to intestine and lacerated wound to mesentery. Intestine would sutured and abdomen closed in layers. He has also examined weapon of the offence viz. Knife (Article 2) and in his opinion the above injuries found on the person of Smt. Jyoti can be caused by Article 2. Thus, he had issued the injury report and opinion which is at Exh.60. 26. Intestine would sutured and abdomen closed in layers. He has also examined weapon of the offence viz. Knife (Article 2) and in his opinion the above injuries found on the person of Smt. Jyoti can be caused by Article 2. Thus, he had issued the injury report and opinion which is at Exh.60. 26. The doctor was cross-examined by the Advocate appearing for the accused persons. In the cross-examination, he stated that he has not mentioned the nature of injuries or a simple or grievous in his certificate at Ex.60. However, he has testified that the injuries found in the abdomen of the victim of the assault has resulted in by one blow. Further more, in his cross-examination, he has voluntarily stated that the abdomen is a fleshy part, therefore, there were three injuries to the intestine and one injury to mesentery by a single blow. In his cross-examination, he has denied the suggestion that even by lesser force, penetrating injury may be caused. At the toll end of his cross-examination, the doctor has unequivocally testified that the injury found on the person of Smt. Jyoti is not possible in a scuffle of two persons of one having a knife in his hand. Therefore, what follows from the medical examination is that the assault by the applicant on the complainant was with great force and the doctor has categorically denied suggestion in his cross-examination that the nature of injury caused to the complainant is simple in nature. 27. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of M. P. v. Kashiram and others reported in 2009 (3) Mh.L.J.(Cri.) 107, in para 9 held that “To justify conviction under this Section, it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted.” In para 10 it is further held that – “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.” 28. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention of the learned Advocate appearing for the applicant that the injuries sustained by the complainant were simple in nature and therefore, the conviction cannot be sustained under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted.” 28. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention of the learned Advocate appearing for the applicant that the injuries sustained by the complainant were simple in nature and therefore, the conviction cannot be sustained under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Though the learned Advocate has placed reliance on various earlier judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court and of this Court, to contend that the injuries i.e. simple in nature, however in the light of recent pronouncement by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of M. P. v. Kashiram and others reported in 2009 (3) Mh.L.J.(Cri.) 107 cited Supra, it has to be held that “it is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there is a 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 inflected.” 29. The learned Advocate submitted that there was no intention or there was no knowledge to the applicant that the injury inflicted would cause death of the complainant or said is in grievous nature. According to the learned Advocate, the prosecutrix had come in the house of Shriram and the applicant never intended to cause any injury to the prosecutrix. The applicant along with accused went in Shriram’s house and they had quarreled with Shriram, but this had nothing to do with the prosecutrix/complainant and therefore, no intention can be attributed towards the applicant that he wanted to inflict any injury or assault the complainant. 30. On careful perusal of the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, it is clear that the evidence of Smt. Jyoti (PW2) victim of the assault is corroborated by the evidence of Indirabai (PW4), Krushna (PW5) and independent witness Shriram (PW1). They have also identified the weapon of the offence used by the accused i.e. knife (Article 2), ballies (Article 10). There are eye witnesses of the occurrence. There is no incriminating evidence in their testimonies to disbelieve or discard the same. Their evidence is consisting to contend that accused No.2 had assaulted Smt. Jyoti with the knife. The positive evidence is brought on record by the prosecution. The medical evidence of Dr. Anjankar is corroborating the evidence of Smt. Jyoti victim of assault and the eye witnesses. There is no incriminating evidence in their testimonies to disbelieve or discard the same. Their evidence is consisting to contend that accused No.2 had assaulted Smt. Jyoti with the knife. The positive evidence is brought on record by the prosecution. The medical evidence of Dr. Anjankar is corroborating the evidence of Smt. Jyoti victim of assault and the eye witnesses. The C.A. Report also corroborates the prosecution case on material particulars. The injuries were also serious that would not even operated, that would have been fatal to the death of the patient as stated by the Doctor. Therefore, there are concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below after appreciation of the evidence on record including medical evidence and C.A. Report. Therefore, there is no question of upsetting concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. 31. The provisions of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code reads thus:- “Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty 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 at, the offender shall be liable either to (imprisonment for life), or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned”. 32. In the instant case, the P.W.2 Smt. Jyoti-complainant went to Shriram’s house and she was asking accused No.1 not to beat Shriram. The complainant had nothing to do with accused No.2 even she did not utter any word to the present applicant/accused No.2, the exchange of word by the complainant was with accused No.1 and accused No.1 has also assaulted the complainant by ballies. It is admitted position that, the said Smt. Jyoti was unarmed. The present applicant/accused No.2 had no occasion to exchange the word with the complainant or there was no any attempt on behalf of the complainant to say something to the present applicant who is accused No.2. The ground taken in the application that the applicant has acted in his self defence is totally false since complainant was unarmed. The present applicant/accused No.2 had no occasion to exchange the word with the complainant or there was no any attempt on behalf of the complainant to say something to the present applicant who is accused No.2. The ground taken in the application that the applicant has acted in his self defence is totally false since complainant was unarmed. If the size of the knife as stated by the prosecution, if taken into consideration, and if same knife is used by the applicant that too with not a normal force then definitely the applicant was aware about the result of the said assault by knife on the abdomen of the complainant. 33. The medical evidence fully supports the prosecution story. The doctor has plainly denied in his cross-examination that the injury caused due to assault by the applicant to the complainant is simple in nature. The Medical Officer further stated in his cross-examination that the injury cannot be sustained by normal force. Therefore, taking into consideration the entire evidence brought on record by the prosecution and injury sustained by the complainant, it leads to definite conclusion that the applicant who is accused No.2 had intention and also knowledge to kill the complainant. As stated earlier, once it is established that the applicant or accused had knowledge and intention to inflict the injury so as to cause bodily harm to the victim, which would result into death, the nature of injuries actually caused is not material. Therefore, in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of M. P. v. Kashiram and others reported in 2009 (3) Mh.L.J.(Cri.) 107 cited Supra, it will have to be concluded that, in the instant case the applicant/accused had knowledge and intention and therefore, both the Courts have rightly convicted the applicant/accused under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the Criminal Revision Application is without any merits. Rule is discharged. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Criminal Revision Application is rejected.