JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 28.2.87, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi in Sessions Case No. 1/86 whereby he convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 307 IPC for 4 years R.I. with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo 3 months R.I. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Ex.P.13 was lodged at police station Kotwali, Bundi on 28.1.1985 by one Shri Raj Kumar on an incident alleged to have taken place on the same day wherein it has been stated that on 28.1.85 on a telephonic message from Hospital Bundi through Dr. S.B. Shah, Shri Rajkumar went to the Hospital for taking statement of Abdul Rajak, A.S.I. p.w. 15 at Bundi Hospital. In the statement of uninjured it is stated that while he was going to his house, he met with appellant and they were talking in a jolly mood and in between this, the appellant inflicted knife blow in his abdomen. Thereafter, the injured was brought to the Hospital by one Karim Tailor. Upon the aforesaid incident, the police registered a case under Section 307 and 324 IPC. After arresting the appellant, the police submitted challan under Section 307 IPC in the court of Addl. Munsif & Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bundi. Learned Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions Judge, Bundi. The learned Sessions Judge transferred the case to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge Bundi who framed charge under Section 307 IPC against the accused appellant. The charges were read over and explained to the accused appellant who denied the charges and claimed for trial. 3. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 15 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter, the statement of accused appellant were also recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC. and in defence, appellant examined one witness Alanoor D.W. 1. 4. After hearing both the parties, the trial court vide its order dated 28.2.1987, convicted the accused appellant as indicated above. The appellant feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court dated 28.2.87, preferred the present appeal with the prayer to quash the same. 5. In this appeal during the course of arguments, Mr. S.K. Jindal alongwith Mr. The appellant feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court dated 28.2.87, preferred the present appeal with the prayer to quash the same. 5. In this appeal during the course of arguments, Mr. S.K. Jindal alongwith Mr. Prashant Sharma Advocates appearing on behalf of the accused appellant has contended that the trial court has not appreciated the evidence of prosecution witnesses properly and without appreciating the evidence as required by the law convicted the accused appellant. He further contended that three star witnesses, namely, P.W. 1 Chetan Anand, P.W. 2 Rajesh Anand and P.W. 2 Ranjeet Singh of the prosecution have beer declared hostile as they have not supported prosecution story. He further contended that prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses and they are not independent witnesses and there are major contradictions in their statements. He further contended that the injured P.W. 5 Raj Kumar has not recognised the knife which was alleged to have been used in the incident and the recovery of the knife is doubtful and the statement of P.W. 15 the Investigating Officer and Ex.11, in these circumstances the evidence of Doctor (PW. 10) is not liable to be relied upon. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the police has already registered a case under Section 307 and 324 IPC but the trial court has framed charge against the appellant under Section 307 IPC, in fact, no offence under Section 307 IPC has been committed by the appellant and the case of the appellant is not more than under Section 324 IPC. He has drawn attention of the Court to Sections 307, 308 and Section 324 IPC which reads as under : Sec. 307-Attempt to murder : 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 extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to (imprisonment for life) or to such punishment as is herein before mentioned. Attempts by life convicts : (When any person offending under this section is under sentence (imprisonment for life), he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death). Attempts by life convicts : (When any person offending under this section is under sentence (imprisonment for life), he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death). Sec. 308. Attempt to commit culpable homicide : 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 culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both. Sec. 324 Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means : Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with finer, or with both." 6. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the incident, took place on 5.9.1999 which about 25 years ago from today and the' accused appellant is facing trial for the last 24 years, the age of the accused appellant is 41 years and having children of marriageable age. 7. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and contended that the trial court has rightly appreciated the statement of prosecution witnesses properly although the aforesaid 3 witnesses have been declared hostile, but the statement of aforesaid witnesses are very much clear and supports the prosecution story and there was no interested witnesses. All witnesses are independent witnesses and the evidence is corroborated from each other. 8. For the reasons as indicated above, I convict the accused appellant under Section 308 IPC instead of Section 307 IPC. All witnesses are independent witnesses and the evidence is corroborated from each other. 8. For the reasons as indicated above, I convict the accused appellant under Section 308 IPC instead of Section 307 IPC. But looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the appellant has already remained in judicial lock up for 1 month and 13 days, ends of justice would be met in case the appellant is released on the period already undergone by him in judicial custody. 9. I impose the fine of Rs. 50,000/- upon the accused appellant who will deposit the same before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi (trial Court) within a period of 3 months from today, in default of payment of fine within the prescribed time, to further undergo for a period of 3 years R.I. If the appellant deposited the same amount, the same should be given to the injured in the case namely, Raj Kumar Soni P.W. 5. 10. The judgment and order dated 28.2.1987 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge Bundi in Session Case No. 1/86 is modified to the extent as indicated above. 11. The accused appellant is on bail, he need not surrender before the trial court. His bail bonds and sureties are stand cancelled.This appeal is partly allowed.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******