JUDGMENT L.K. MISHRA, J. — This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed on 15.1.2005 by Shri B.C. Tripathy, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nuapada in SESS. Case No. 131/22 of 2003 (arising out of G.R. Case No. 138 of 2003 of the court of learned S.D.J.M., Nuapada) by which he convicted the appellant (hereinafter called “the accused”) under Sections 450 and 307 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- (rupees two thousand), in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for six months u/s. 450 I.P.C. and further to undergo R.I. for a period of five years and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- (rupees three thousand) in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for one year u/s. 307 I.P.C.. Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The short facts are that Bhuri Bai Satnami (P.W.7) the wife of the accused had come to the house of her mother Bisahin Satnami (P.W.8) having quarrelled with the accused. The accused came to take her back about eight days prior to the occurrence but she denied to go with him. On the date of occurrence i.e. on 29.05.03 at about 11.30 A.M. the accused trespassed into the house of P.W.8 when P.Ws.7,8 and other members of the family were present. All on a sudden, he picked up an axe and gave several cut blows on the head and other parts of the body of P.W.8 with a view to kill her, causing bleeding injuries. Hearing the shout of the injured other witnesses came to the spot and snatched away the axe from the hand of the accused due to which the injured was saved. The son of the injured Deepak Kumar Satnami (P.W.1) lodged a written report before Jonk Police Station on which a P.S. case was registered and investigation was taken up. During investiga¬tion the I.O. sent the injured for medical examination, visited the spot, examined witnesses and after all other necessary inves¬tigation submitted charge sheet against the accused under Sec¬tions 450 and 307 of the I.P.C. 3. The accused faced trial being indicated under those sections. During trial his plea was one of the total denial and of false implication. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses in support of its case. The accused faced trial being indicated under those sections. During trial his plea was one of the total denial and of false implication. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses in support of its case. Besides the witness named above Babulal Chauhan @ Sagar, Bharat Satnami, Kechuru Satnami and Ganesh Satnami, were examined as P.Ws. 2,3,4 and 5 respectively. Dr. Sankar Prasad Meher (P.W.6) was the doctor who examined P.W.8 on police requisition. Siba Prasad Satnami, the brother-in-law of the injured and a post-occurrence witness was examined as P.W.9. Surendranath Raiguru (P.W.10) was the I.O. No defence was ad¬duced. The learned Court below on appreciation of evidence found the accused guilty on both counts and convicted and sentenced him as above. 4. Shri H.K. Mallik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/accused has submitted vehemently that the accused had right of entry to the house in question since he was the son-in-law of P.W.8 and further since his wife was residing in that house at that time. Therefore, the case of trespass and consequently a case under Section 450 of the I.P.C. is not made out. He has further submitted that witnesses who have supported the prosecution case are interested witnesses and therefore the trial court below should not have believed them. Finally, he has submitted that even if the entire occurrence is taken to be true then also a case under Section 307 is not made out. Sri S. Beh¬era, Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, has supported the impugned judgment. 5. P.W.1 is merely the informant and not an occurrence witness. P.W.2 though initially stated that on hearing hulla he went to the house of the injured and fond the accused assaulting on her head by means of a ‘Tangia’ and that Ganesh Satnami (P.W.5) snatched away the ‘Tangia’ from the hand of the accused; in cross-examination he has stated that he has not seen any blow given by the accused. Of course he has claimed that he had snatched away the ‘Tangia’ from the hand of the accused. Bharat Satnami (P.W.3) and Ganesh Satnami (P.W.5) both have stated that hearing hulla they went to the house of the injured and found the accused coming out from the house holding with a blood stained ‘Tangia’. They have also admitted that P.W.2-Babulal Chauhan@Sagar had gone to the spot with them. Bharat Satnami (P.W.3) and Ganesh Satnami (P.W.5) both have stated that hearing hulla they went to the house of the injured and found the accused coming out from the house holding with a blood stained ‘Tangia’. They have also admitted that P.W.2-Babulal Chauhan@Sagar had gone to the spot with them. Therefore none of these witnesses saw the occurrence itself but found the accused coming out from the house of the injured with a blood stained ‘Tangia’ soon after the occurrence. It may be noted here that P.W.4-Kechuru Satnami did not support the prosecution case at all. Siba Prasad Satnami (P.W.9) is out and out a post occurrence witness and got his knowledge from the injured. The daughter of the accused, namely Jayanti Satnami, an alleged eye witness was not examined in this case. Therefore, the prosecution is left with the evidence of P.W.8-Bisahim Satnami the injured herself and P.W.7-Bhuri Bai Satnami wife of the accused to prove the occurrence. 6. There is virtually no contradiction in their evidence so as to disbelieve their evidence. It is true that they are interested witnesses being more or less inimical to the accused. However, there is no rule of law or of prudence that the evidence of an interested witness is to be discarded. It is only to be subjected to careful scrutiny. On the other hand, the evidence of the injured witness cannot be lightly brushed aside since she is the last person to see a wrong person convicted in place of the real assailant. Therefore, I don’t fine any reason to discard the evidence of P.Ws. 7 and 8 and on their evidence alone a convic¬tion is maintainable. 7. In addition to the above, all the independent witnesses to the case i.e. P.Ws.2,3,4 and 5 have stated in unison that hearing hulla of the injured, they rushed to the house in ques¬tion and saw the accused coming out from that house holding a blood stained tangia. Their statements in this regard has not been challenged by the defence at all. P.W.6-Dr. Their statements in this regard has not been challenged by the defence at all. P.W.6-Dr. Sankar Prasad Meher, who medically examined the injured on police requisition has stated to have found six incised wound of various sizes on different parts of the body of the injured which are as follows: (i) One incised wound over right palm of size 1"x1/4"x1/3" (ii) One incised wound over left thumb of size 1 1/2"x1/4"x1/3" (iii) One incised wound over left palm of size 1"x1/4"x1/3" (iv) One incised wound of size 4"x1/4"x1/4" over scalp of the right side. (v) One incised wound of size 1 1/2"x1/4"x1/4" over back of scalp. (vi) One incised would of size 1" x 1/4" x 1/4" on the back at the level of T-10 vertibra. He has stated that all the injuries were simple in nature and could have been caused by sharp cutting weapon. Therefore, the medical evidence in this case also supports the prosecution case. 8. From the above discussion, it is clear that the injured P.W.8 had sustained six cut injuries on her person which were inflicted by the accused. However, it still remains to be seen whether the accused inflicted the injuries in the process of his attempt to kill her. Admittedly, the accused did not enter into the house being armed with an axe and he took up an axe inside the house itself. No doubt P.Ws.7 and 8 have stated that the independent witnesses snatched away the Tangia and that otherwise the accused would have killed P.W.8. But the independent witness¬es have stated in unison that they did not see the occurrence but found the accused coming out from the house after the occurrence with a blood stained Tangia. In addition to that P.W.8 has her¬self admitted in cross-examination that after the assault she was in sense and that after the assault she came of the house and raised hulla and the witnesses came to the spot and caught hold of the accused. Therefore, there remains no manner of doubt that it was only after the occurrence was over the other witnesses came to the spot and further that they did not intervene in the occurrence. If the accused had the intention to kill of the injured and had an axe in his hand and in fact gave six blows to the injured, then what prevented him from finishing the job? If the accused had the intention to kill of the injured and had an axe in his hand and in fact gave six blows to the injured, then what prevented him from finishing the job? The entire evidence goes to show that after injuring P.W.8 the ac¬cused stopped there and came out of the house without killing her. If a person has the intention to cause death of somebody and does some act in furtherance of such intention which would have resulted in the death of such person, but was thwarted in his attempt by some mitigating circumstance then he can be held guilty of attempting to commit murder as provided under Section 307 of the I.P.C. In the present case the accused after inflict¬ing six cut blows on P.W.8 stopped his assault and was coming out of the house when he was caught hold of. Therefore, it cannot be said that he had the required intention to commit the murder of P.W.8 and that in fact he attempted to commit her murder. On the other hand, it appears that the accused wanted to teach a lesson to P.W.8 and in that view picking up an axe gave the simple cut blows to P.W.8. The offence committed by the accused thus is squarely covered under Section 324 of the I.P.C. 9. The learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that in the present case the accused had a right to enter into the house of his mother-in-law especially when his wife was living there and that therefore he has not committed the offence of the house trespass. Sections 441 and 442 of the I.P.C. which define criminal trespass and house trespass read as under: “441. Criminal Trespass. - Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in posses¬sion of such property, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, is said to commit “criminal trespass”. 442. 442. House Trespass - Whoever commits criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building used as a place for worship, or as a place for the custody of property, is said to commit “house trespass”. Trespass is an offence against possession. In the present case it is not disputed that the property was in possession of P.W.8. It is also found that the house was used as human dwelling and hat the accused entered into the house with the intention to commit an offence. Had he gone to the house as a son-in-law per¬haps the matter would have been different. But his intention to commit an offence makes his entrance a trespass. However, in the present case, it is not certain that the accused committed house trespass, having made preparation for causing hurt or assault since he was not armed with an axe when he entered into the house. The appropriate section would be therefore, Section 451 I.P.C. which punishes house trespass in order to the committing an offence punishable with imprisonment. 10. On the discussion above, it is found that the prosecu¬tion has failed to prove its case under Sections 307 and 450 I.P.C. The conviction of the accused under Sections 307 and 450 I.P.C. are therefore hereby set aside. Instead the accused is convicted u/s. 324 and 451 of the I.P.C. He is sentenced to R.I. for one year on each count, sentences to run concurrently. The appeal is allowed in part as aforesaid. Appeal allowed in part.