JUDGMENT : Pradeep Kumar, J. Nobody appears on behalf of the appellant on repeated calls. In absence of lawyer for the appellant, on the request of Court, Shri Jagannath Mahato appeared in the case on behalf of the appellant as Amicus, Curie. Heard learned Counsel for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.01.2000 passed by Shri P.K. Sinha No. 11, learned 1st Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Sessions Trial Case No. 504 of 1999, by which judgment, he found the appellant guilty for the offence u/s 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and he also found the appellant guilty u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. However, both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. It is submitted by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that it will appear from the prosecution case as disclosed in the F.I.R. as also from the evidences of the witnesses that since the accused-appellant, Birendra Singh Baraik was viewing cinema without ticket in the Sandhya Cinema Hall and the informant-injured, Kewal Bishwakarma ousted him from the cinema hall, that's why, to give him lesson, he was waiting with a 'Chhura' outside the cinema hall and when he came out from the cinema hall for going to his house after evening show was over, the appellant suddenly attacked him, and as such, there was no intention to commit the murder of the informant, rather the intention of the appellant was only to given him a lesson, and as such, the lenient view may be taken while convicting the appellant. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that since the accused-appellant gave repeated 'Chhura' blow on the vital part of body namely, the stomach and also near the pubic region of the injured-informant, he has rightly been convicted u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code also. 5. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that since the accused-appellant gave repeated 'Chhura' blow on the vital part of body namely, the stomach and also near the pubic region of the injured-informant, he has rightly been convicted u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code also. 5. After hearing both the parties and after going through the evidences on record, I find that the prosecution case was started on the basis of F.I.R. given by the informant, P.W. 2, Kewal Bishwakarma stating therein that he was working as a 'ticket checker' in the Sandhya Cinema Hall and today i.e. on 11.05.1999 during ticket checking in the evening show, he found that one person namely Birendra Singh Baraik of Lichi Bagan was sitting in the cinema hall without any ticket, and hence, he ousted him from the cinema hall, then he gave threat that he will see him. Subsequently, after the evening show at about 8.45 P.M., when he was going to his house and he reached near the southern side of Purlia road, then suddenly, the accused, Birendra Singh Baraik came running with a dagger in his hand and pierced the same in stomach of the informant. Then, he took out the dagger from his stomach and then gave another 'Chhura' blow near his hydrosil and he became unconscious and fell down. Then, the members of the crowd and police reached there and caught hold of the accused and brought him to hospital, where he gave his statement. 6. On the basis of said fardbeyan given by Kewal Bishwakarma, police registered a case for the offence under Sections 324/307/326 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation submitted charge sheet against the accused under the aforesaid sections. 7. Since, the case was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, learned C.J.M. after taking cognizance, committed the case to the court of Sessions and lastly the case was tried by 1st Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi and he found the appellant guilty under aforesaid sections. 8. It appears that in course of trial, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses. P.W.1 is A.K. Verma. P.W. 2 is Kewal Bishwakarma, the informant in the case. P.W.3 is Prakash Vishwakarma. P.W.4 is Shankar Vishwakarma. P.W.5 is Shyam Verma. P.W.6 is Dr. Rajsekhar Sharma, who has examined the injured. P.W.7 is Ganesh Kumar, I.O. of the case. 8. It appears that in course of trial, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses. P.W.1 is A.K. Verma. P.W. 2 is Kewal Bishwakarma, the informant in the case. P.W.3 is Prakash Vishwakarma. P.W.4 is Shankar Vishwakarma. P.W.5 is Shyam Verma. P.W.6 is Dr. Rajsekhar Sharma, who has examined the injured. P.W.7 is Ganesh Kumar, I.O. of the case. 9. P.W.1, A.K. Verma, who was S.I. of police, has stated that while during patrolling he reached ahead of Sandhya cinema Hall, then he saw that a lot of people have assembled at one place and were holding the injured man, who was bleeding from his stomach and another person was also caught with a 'Chhura' and the injured man disclosed his name as Kewal Bishwakarma and the person, who has caught the 'Chhura' has disclosed his name as Birendra Singh. Then, he being the S.I. of Traffic Police seized the 'Chhura' from the possession of the accused and prepared a seizure list in presence of independent witnesses. He also arrested the accused Birendra Singh and took the injured to sadar hospital which was nearby to the place of occurrence. He identified his signature on the seizure list. He also identified his signature on the fardbeyan, which was given by the injured in the hospital before the Ganesh Kumar, the I.O. of the case, which is marked as Ext. 1. He also proved his signature on the seizure list which is marked as Ext. 2. He also identified the accused in the Court. 10. P.W. 2, Kewal Bishwakarma, the informant has fully supported his statement as given in the fardbeyan and stated that on 11.05.1999 at about 8.30 P.M., after completing his duty in the Sandhya Cinema hall, when he was returning to his house and reached near the southern end of Purlia road, then suddenly, the accused Birendra Singh Baraik came running with a dagger in his hand and gave a dagger blow in his stomach. Thereafter, he gave another dagger blow near the hydrosil, which also pierced by the side of the hydrosil. Then, he fell down bleeding. Then, people reached there and police also reached there and arrested the accused with a 'Chhura' and sent him to sadar hospital, where he gave his fardbeyan. He proved his signature in the fardbeyan and also identified the accused in the court. Then, he fell down bleeding. Then, people reached there and police also reached there and arrested the accused with a 'Chhura' and sent him to sadar hospital, where he gave his fardbeyan. He proved his signature in the fardbeyan and also identified the accused in the court. In his cross examination, he stated that while the accused gave the chhura blow, nobody was there to save him and when he fell clown then the accused gave another chhura blow to him and when the police came, then only other passers by also gathered there. The night patrolling party, which was going on a Gypsy, stopped and caught hold of the accused. 11. P.W.3, Prakash Vishwakarma has also stated that on 11.05.1999 at about 8.30 P.M. in the night he was in his house and he came out after hearing 'Hulla' and saw that a person is injured by a dagger blow and another person was trying to run away with a dagger, who has been caught hold by the people assemble there. He identified the injured person as Kewal Bishwakarma and the person caught by the mob disclosed his name as Birendra Singh. He identified the accused in court. P.W. 4, Shankar Vishwakarma has also stated that he also came out from his house hearing 'Hulla' on 11.05.1999 at about 8.30 P.M. and saw the accused with a 'Chhura' and he was caught hold by the people assembled there, and subsequently, police came and arrested him with 'Chhura' and the injured Kewal Bishwakarma was sent to sadar hospital. P.W. 5, Shyam Verma has also proved his signature in the seizure list. P.W.6, Dr. Raj Sekhar Sharma has examined the informant and proved the injury report and stated that he found following two penetrating injuries: (i) Penetrating injury on the epigastric region on the stomach 11/2" 1/2"deep. (ii) Penetrating injury on the pubic region right side of the root of penis 1 1/2" 1/2"deep. In the opinion of the doctor, the injury was grievous in nature caused by sharp penetrating weapon like dagger. He proved the injury report as Ext. 4. P.W. 7, Ganesh Kumar is the I.O. of the case, who has proved the fardbeyan recorded by him at sadar hospital on 11.05.1999. He also proved the seizure list, which was prepared by S.I. He has took the dagger in his own possession and arrested the accused. He proved the injury report as Ext. 4. P.W. 7, Ganesh Kumar is the I.O. of the case, who has proved the fardbeyan recorded by him at sadar hospital on 11.05.1999. He also proved the seizure list, which was prepared by S.I. He has took the dagger in his own possession and arrested the accused. He examined the witnesses present at the place of occurrence in the hospital and after investigation submitted charge sheet in the case after supervision of the case by superior authority. 12. Thus, after hearing both the parties and after going through the evidences on record, I find that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused, in order to give him lesson for ousting him from the cinema hall, waited outside the cinema hall with 'Chhura' and when the informant came out from the cinema hall after duty he rushed towards him and gave two repeated 'Chhura' blows, and thus, his conviction u/s 326 of the Indian Penal Code requires no reconsideration by this Court. However, from the evidences as discussed above, I find that there is no evidence that the accused has any intention to commit the murder of the informant, Kewal Bishwakarma. He had only intention to give him a lesson for ousting him from the cinema hall. However, he inflicted two grievous injuries, but he had no intention to commit the murder as stated by the informant, P.W. 2 itself in cross examination at para 4 and he should have inflicted further injuries over the vital part of the body, since, nobody was there to stop him from inflicting injuries, and hence, his conviction u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code is not warranted and has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and thus he is acquitted from the charges leveled against him u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code. However, his conviction u/s 326 of the Indian Penal Code is confirmed and the appellant is on bail. Thus, his bail bond is cancelled and the trial court is directed to issue a warrant, of arrest against the appellant for serving out the senence. 13. With the aforesaid alteration in the appeal, this appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.