Surjit Singh, J (Oral) 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 20th November, 1996, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (1), Kangra at Dharamshala, whereby respondents Subhash Singh and Sukinder Kumar, who were tried for offences, under Sections 307 and 323, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted. 2. Respondent Sukinder Kumar is stated to have died, during the pendency of the present appeal. So, the appeal as against him has been recorded to have been abated, vide zimini order dated 3rd May, 1999. 3. Case of the prosecution, which led to the trial of respondent Subhash Singh and deceased respondent Sukinder Kumar, may be stated. Ranjit Singh (PW-15) was employed in the Army. In October, 1995, he came on leave. On 12th October, 1995, he went to attend the marriage of his brother-in-law, in village Dari. After taking dinner, he started back in the company of Amar Singh (PW-5), one Onkar Singh and Narinder Singh (PW-1) in the Van of respondent Subhash Singh, which was being driven by deceased respondent Sukinder Kumar. Respondent Subhash Singh was occupying a seat adjacent to that of the driver, while injured PW-15 Ranjit Singh, PW-5 Amar Singh, PW-1 Narinder Singh and Onkar Singh were occupying back seat. On the way, occupants of the back seat started talking to each other. Respondent Subhash Singh started interjecting in the talk, which annoyed PW-1 Narinder Singh. He asked him not to interrupt them in their talk. This annoyed respondent Subhash Singh. 4. When the Van reached near Electricity Board Office, it was got stopped by respondent Subhash Singh. As soon as the Van stopped, respondent Subhash Singh started giving fist blows to Onkar Singh. Upon that PW-15 Ranjit Singh alighted from the Van and asked respondent Subhash Singh not to be violent and use force. Respondent Subhash Singh then caught hold of Ranjit Singh by his collar. He was pushed by Ranjit Singh and thrown into a nearby drain. Thereafter, PW-1 Narinder Singh went to his house, situated in a direction different from village Sudher, where PW-15 Ranjit Singh had his house. In the meanwhile, PW-6 Ajay Singh, a cousin of the wife of PW-15 Ranjit Singh, appeared from Dari side on a scooter. He took Ranjit Singh on his scooter towards Dharamshala town and dropped him at Gandhi Vatika Chowk. In the meanwhile, PW-6 Ajay Singh, a cousin of the wife of PW-15 Ranjit Singh, appeared from Dari side on a scooter. He took Ranjit Singh on his scooter towards Dharamshala town and dropped him at Gandhi Vatika Chowk. When PW-15 Ranjit Singh was still at the aforesaid Chowk, both the respondents appeared there in the same Van. Respondent Subhash Singh alighted from the Van and went to PW-15 Ranjit Singh and asked him, in a challenging tone, if he was the same Fouji (Army man), who had assaulted him earlier, near the Electricity Board Office. Respondent Subhash Singh then took out a dagger (Ex. P-3) and stabbed Ranjit Singh, on the left side of the neck. Dagger pierced through the neck and its tip appeared on the other side. PW-15 Ranjit Singh then gave a push to respondent Subhash Singh. The latter fell on the ground, as a result of that push. Dagger got pulled out from the neck of Ranjit Singh and fell on one side. Respondent Subhash Singh called deceased respondent Sukinder Kumar, who was in the Van, for help. He carried him in the Van towards Macleodganj. 5. PW-15 Ranjit Singh then proceeded towards his village Sudher. His Massi’s house fell on the way, at a distance of about 2 kms. Holding his bleeding stab wound, he reached his Massi’s place, with great difficulty, sitting and taking rest at 3-4 points, on the way. He had picked up the dagger from the site and put it in his pocket, but it fell from his pocket at one of the sites, on the way, where he took rest. On reaching his Massi’s house, he called his Massi to open the door. His Massi’s son Tej Singh (PW-2) heard his call and opened the door. On seeing PW-15 Ranjit Singh lying with an injury in the neck, in the verandah, PW-2 Tej Singh asked him as to what had happened. PW-15 Ranjit Singh told him that he had been stabbed in the neck by respondent Subhash Singh taxiwala. Soon thereafter, he became unconscious. He was taken to the hospital at Dharamshala, by PW-2 Tej Singh. Wound was packed at Dharamshala hospital and injured was referred to PGI, Chandigarh, where he remained admitted upto 3rd November, 1995. On being discharged from PGI, PW-15 Ranjit Singh straightway went to Jallandhar and joined his duty. 6. Soon thereafter, he became unconscious. He was taken to the hospital at Dharamshala, by PW-2 Tej Singh. Wound was packed at Dharamshala hospital and injured was referred to PGI, Chandigarh, where he remained admitted upto 3rd November, 1995. On being discharged from PGI, PW-15 Ranjit Singh straightway went to Jallandhar and joined his duty. 6. Case was registered, on the basis of statement Ex. PW-1/A, made by PW-1 Narinder Singh, under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Statement of PW15 Ranjit Singh, under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded on 8th November, 1995, at Jallandhar. On the basis of statement made by PW-15 Ranjit Singh, search of dagger was carried out and the dagger was recovered from the bushes, by the side of the passage leading to village Sudher from Gandhi Vatika Chowk. This recovery was effected on 11th November, 1995. 7. On the very night of occurrence, blood stains were noticed at the site of stabbing, by PW-16 SI Dharam Chand. He lifted the blood stained earth and pebbles from the spot. Clothes of PW-15 Ranjit Singh were also taken into possession, during the investigation. Those clothes, blood stained earth and pebbles and the dagger were sent to the Chemical Examiner, who, vide report Ex. PX, reported that all the aforesaid articles were stained with human blood. Some blood was found in the Van, in question, also, cotton and swabs of which were prepared. Those were also sent to the Chemical Examiner, who opined that the swabs contained blood. 8. Medical examination of injured PW-15 Ranjit Singh and PW-1 Narinder Singh was conducted by PW-8 Dr. R.K. Sharma, who found the following injuries: Injuries on the person of PW-15 Ranjit Singh “1. An incised wound of 1.5” inches present over left side of the neck with profused bleeding. Shirt was soiled with with blood clots. Air was coming out from the wound during expiration. Wound was communicating with oropharyns. 2. There was bleeding from the mouth but no wound was seen in the mouth. 3. Half centimeter punctured wound present over right side of neck with blood oozing out. Crepitus was present over the right side of neck. Packing of stab wound was done and I.V. fluids was started. Patient was referred to PGI Chandigarh for further management.” Injuries on the person of PW-1 Narinder Singh “1. 3. Half centimeter punctured wound present over right side of neck with blood oozing out. Crepitus was present over the right side of neck. Packing of stab wound was done and I.V. fluids was started. Patient was referred to PGI Chandigarh for further management.” Injuries on the person of PW-1 Narinder Singh “1. Contusion over face in left lower eyelid area bluish black in colour of 1 cm x 2.5 cm in size. 2. Contusion over lower lip on left side with swelling of lip. 3. Abrasion on left shoulder measuring ½ cm x 1 cm. 4. 2 mm x 2 cm abrasion on back near the middle of left spacular border. 5. Small abrasion of ½ cm x 2 MM in size present at lower border of left scapula on back.” 9. Injuries found on the person of PW-15 Ranjit Singh were opined to be grievous in nature and dangerous to life. It was also opined that the injuries could have been caused by means of knife Ex. P-3. Injuries on the person of PW-1 Narinder Singh were found to be simple, caused with some blunt weapon or by fist blows. 10. On completion of investigation, respondents were challaned. Case was committed to the Sessions Court by the concerned Judicial Magistrate, after complying with the requirement of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sessions Court charged the respondents with offences, under Sections 307 and 323, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Respondents pleaded not guilty to the charge and were, therefore, put on trial. 11. Respondents-accused did not deny that injured PW-15 Ranjit Singh, PW-1 Narinder Singh, PW-5 Amar Singh and Onkar Singh had travelled by their Van from Dari to a point near Electricity Board Office. They also did not deny that a scuffle had taken place near that office. They also did not deny that from that point PW-15 Ranjit Singh, PW-1 Narinder Singh, PW-5 Amar Singh and Onkar Singh, did not travel by their Van. However, they denied having gone to Gandhi Vatika Chowk by their Van and one of them namely, respondent Subhash Singh, having stabbed PW-15 Ranjit Singh, at the said Chowk. 12. Trial Court has held that the case of the prosecution does not stand proved, beyond reasonable doubt and has consequently acquitted the respondents. 13. We have gone through the evidence and reappraised it, thoroughly. 12. Trial Court has held that the case of the prosecution does not stand proved, beyond reasonable doubt and has consequently acquitted the respondents. 13. We have gone through the evidence and reappraised it, thoroughly. Also, we have heard the learned Additional Advocate General and learned counsel for the respondent. 14. PW-15 Ranjit Singh very categorically stated that after the initial incident, which took place near the Electricity Board Office, he travelled upto Gandhi Vatika Chowk, Dharamshala, by riding the pillion of his brother-in-law Ajay Singh (PW-6). He is corroborated, with regard to this part of his testimony, by PW-6 Ajay Singh. We see no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-15 Ranjit Singh and PW-6 Ajay Singh, so far as this fact is concerned. PW-6 Ajay Singh, after dropping PW-15 Ranjit Singh at the aforesaid Chowk, went back to fetch some other relatives, per testimony of Ranjit Singh. His testimony to this effect has also not been challenged in the cross-examination. So, we see no reason to disbelieve the same. That means PW-15 Ranjit Singh was all alone at the Chowk, when the incident of stabbing took place. The time was around 11 p.m. According to PW-15 Ranjit Singh, within 2-3 minutes of PW-6 Ajay Singh’s dropping him at the aforesaid Chowk, both the respondents appeared in a Maruti Van, the number of which was HP-02-3048, and that that Van stopped near him. He also stated that respondent Subhash Singh, after alighting from the Van, came to him and asked him was he the same Fouji who had quarrelled with him and then stabbed him with a dagger, in the neck. 15. Testimony of PW-15 Ranjit Singh is corroborated by medical evidence. PW-8 Dr. R.K. Sharma, who medically examined him on that very night, found stab wounds on his neck, caused by means of a weapon, like dagger Ex. P-3. His statement is further corroborated by PW-2 Tej Singh, his Massi’s son, who stated that when he opened the door, on hearing injured PW-15 Ranjit Singh calling his (witness’s) mother and came out, he saw him (Ranjit Singh) in the verandah, with bleeding injury on his neck, and on enquiry he told that he had been stabbed by respondent Subhash Singh taxiwala. Testimony of the witness is relevant, under Section 6 of the Evidence Act, as res gestae. 16. Testimony of the witness is relevant, under Section 6 of the Evidence Act, as res gestae. 16. Testimony of PW-15 Ranjit Singh is further corroborated by PW-17 Dr. Kiranbir Singh from PGI, Chandigarh, who testified that the injury, for which PW-15 Ranjit Singh was treated at the PGI, was possible with dagger Ex. P-3. 17. Also, we find corroboration to the testimony of PW-15 Ranjit Singh from the fact that on the very night of occurrence PW-16 SI Dharam Singh noticed blood at the site of the occurrence and collected a portion of blood stained earth and pebbles from the spot. Said earth and pebbles are reported to contain human blood, per report Ex. PX. 18. There is no contradiction, worth noticing, in the testimony of PW-15 Ranjit Singh, PW-2 Tej Singh and PW-1 Narinder Singh. Also, there was no enmity between the injured and the respondents and, hence, question of false implication of the respondents does not arise. PW-15 Ranjit Singh had sustained very serious injuries in the neck, which threatened his life. He had to be shifted immediately to the PGI to save his life. Had the injuries been caused to him by a person, other than respondent Subhash Singh, he would not have screened that assailant and falsely implicated the present respondent, without there being any motive for such false implication. 19. The part of body chosen by respondent Subhash Singh to stab PW-15 Ranjit Singh with dagger Ex. P-3, which has 7½ inches long blade, itself speaks of the intention of the respondent. Blow was given with a good deal of force. It caused a punctured wound. The injury was quite deep. Inhaled air and exhaled wind were coming out at the site of the stab wound, per testimony of PW-8 Dr. R.K. Sharma. Thus, it is clear that respondent Subhash Singh had the intention to kill PW-15 Ranjit Singh. Therefore, his act falls within the mischief of attempted murder, punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment of the trial Court, acquitting him of the charge, under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and convict him of the said offence. 20. Therefore, his act falls within the mischief of attempted murder, punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment of the trial Court, acquitting him of the charge, under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and convict him of the said offence. 20. As regards charge, under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, we see no reason for interfering with the finding of acquittal, because the charge under this provision is based on the injuries sustained by PW-1 Narinder Singh. Evidence on record shows that not only PW-1 Narinder Singh, but respondent Subhash Singh also sustained injuries in the initial incident, which took place near the office of Electricity Board. Both the sides quarrelled and then fought and sustained injuries. It is not clear from the evidence as to who were the aggressors. Respondent-convict Subhash Singh be now produced, on 2nd June, 2010, for being heard on the question of quantum of sentence. Non-bailable warrant of arrest be also issued against the respondent-convict.