Judgment 1. This Criminal Appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 29.05.2006, made in S.C.No.155 of 2006, on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Track Court No.III, Chennai, whereby the accused/appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo four years rigorous imprisonment. 2. The respondent police has filed a charge sheet against the accused stating that on 26.09.2005, at 8.30 p.m., the accused has wrongfully restrained P.W.1, who was riding his rickshaw and directed him to take the accused in the rickshaw to the place that he mentioned. Since P.W.1 Loganathan is not willing to do that, the accused assaulted him with sickle and caused injury with an intention to murder and also made criminal intimidation, thereby, committed the offences under Sections 341, 324, 307 and 506(ii) IPC. 3. The learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the aforesaid offence and committed the matter to the Principal Sessions Court, City Civil Court, Chennai and the Principal Sessions Court made over it to the Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Track Court No.III, Chennai. The Additional District and Sessions Court after following the procedure, framed necessary charges. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, on the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.6 were examined and Exs.P1 to P7 were marked. 4. The case of the prosecution on the basis of the evidence let in by the prosecution witness is as follows: (i) On 26.09.2005, at 8.30 p.m., when P.W.1, who is the rickshaw driver, was returning to the place where he was staying, at the time, the accused/appellant who restrained P.W.1, called him for savari and since P.W.1 refused to take the accused in the rickshaw, the accused assaulted P.W.1 with knife and thereby, he sustained injury. While P.W.1 was trying to prevent the same, he also sustained injury on his palm. Immediately, he went to Stanley hospital, where Dr.Deenadayalan gave first aid to him and the Accident Register Copy was marked as Ex.P4. At the time, P.W.1 stated that he was assaulted by one known person at 8.30 p.m. P.W.1 sustained the following injuries: "5 X 1 cm lacerated injury on his scalp (centre); 2 X 2 cm abrasion on the right hand near wrist;" Thereafter, P.W.5/Dr.Vasugi, gave treatment to P.W.1 and pointed out the injuries sustained by him and issued wound certificate Ex.P3. (ii) At 11.50 p.m., on 26.09.2005, P.W.6 Rajkumar, who was working as Inspector of Police (Law and Order), received information from the Stanley Hospital and went to the hospital and examined P.W.1 and recorded his statement. The complaint given by P.W.1 was marked as Ex.P1. Then P.W.6 returned to police station and registered a case in Crime No.554 of 2005 under Sections 341, 324, 307 and 506(ii) IPC and preferred printed F.I.R. Ex.P5. He rushed to the place of occurrence and prepared Ex.P6 observation mahazar and drew rough sketch Ex.P7 in the presence of P.W.4/Kuppan and one Babu. (iii) On the very next day (i.e.) on 27.09.2005, P.W.6 examined other witnesses and recorded their statements and arrested the accused on 27.09.2005, at 11.00 a.m. and produced him before the judicial custody. After completing his investigation, he filed a charge sheet against the accused as stated above. 5. The learned trial Judge placed the incriminating evidence against the accused and the accused denied the same. On his side, no oral and documentary evidence was marked. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court acquitted the accused for the offence under Sections 341, 324 and 506(ii) IPC and convicted the accused for the offence under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him as stated above. 6. Challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, Mr.K.Shanmugam, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that P.W.2 and P.W.3, who are the alleged eye-witnesses were turned hostile, except ipse dixit of P.W.1/complainant, no other evidence is available. P.W.4/Kuppan, one of the attestors of observation mahazar, deposed in his evidence that he was simply put his signature in the observation mahazar, but he did not know what had written in it. It is further submitted that the scene of occurrence has not been proved. This case has been foisted against the accused/appellant for detaining him under Gundas Act. Hence, he prayed for setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. 7. Resisting the same, Mr.C.Emalias, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that even though four charges were framed against the accused, he was convicted only for the offence under Section 307 IPC. The accused/appellant with an intention to cause murder, assaulted P.W.1 with knife on his head, for which, Ex.P3 wound certificate was marked. 7. Resisting the same, Mr.C.Emalias, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that even though four charges were framed against the accused, he was convicted only for the offence under Section 307 IPC. The accused/appellant with an intention to cause murder, assaulted P.W.1 with knife on his head, for which, Ex.P3 wound certificate was marked. So the trial Court considered all the aspects in proper perspective and convicted him only for the offence under Section 307 IPC, which does not warrant any interference. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 8. Considered the submissions made on both sides and the materials available on record. 9. Admittedly, on the side of the prosecution, P.W.2/ Subramanian and P.W.3/Chandrasekar, who are the eye witnesses were examined, but they were turned hostile. It is well settled principle of law that evidence of single injured eye-witness is reliable provided it must be natural, cogent and trustworthy. Considering the evidence of P.W.1, both in chief and cross-examination, there is no reason for discarding the evidence of P.W.1. It is pertinent to note that after the incident, P.W.1 was gone to Stanley hospital where he was treated by Dr.Deenadayalan, subsequently, P.W.5/Dr.Vasugi also treated P.W.1 and Ex.P3 wound certificate & Ex.P4 Accident Register copy were marked. P.W.6 after receiving information from Stanley Hospital, went there and recorded Ex.P1 complaint from P.W.1 and registered a case. So there is no reason for discarding the evidence of P.W.1. 10. Considering the evidence of P.W.1 along with the evidence of P.W.5/Dr.Vasugi, it shows that P.W.1 sustained only two injuries, which is as follows: "5 X 1 cm lacerated injury on his scalp (centre); 2 X 2 cm abrasion on the right hand near wrist;" P.W.5 opined in Ex.P3 wound certificate that the injuries were simple in nature. 11.At this juncture, it is appropriate to incorporate the ingredients of Section 307 IPC, which reads as follows: "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 hereinbefore mentioned. " The essential ingredients required to be proved in the case of an offence under Section 307 IPC are: (i) .. .. (ii) .. .. (iii) That such act was done 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; or (b) was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or that the accused attempted to cause 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 is likely to cause death, the accused having no excuse for incurring the risk of causing such death or injury. " 12. While perusing the evidence of P.W.1, who is an eye witness in his chief examination, he never mentioned that the accused with an intention to commit murder, assaulted P.W.1. Furthermore, in his evidence, he has specifically stated that since P.W.1 was refused to take the accused as a savari, he assaulted him with sickle on his head. When P.W.1 prevented the same, he sustained injury on his palm. In such circumstances, there is no iota of evidence to show that the appellant/accused with an intention to commit murder, had assaulted P.W.1. So I am of the view, the trial Court committed an error in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 307 IPC. Since the appellant/accused caused injury, which is simple in nature, the offence under Section 324 IPC alone has been made out. Therefore, I am of the view, the accused/appellant is acquitted for the offence under Section 307 IPC and he is convicted only for the offence under Section 324 IPC. Hence, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court under Section 307 IPC is hereby set aside. 13. On perusal of the record, it is seen that the accused/appellant was arrested on 27.09.2005 and he has been languished in jail till the pronouncement of the judgment (i.e.) 29.05.2006, on which, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo four years rigorous imprisonment. He has been languished in jail from the pronouncement of the judgment till the date of suspension of sentence (i.e.) on 26.03.2007. He has been languished in jail from the pronouncement of the judgment till the date of suspension of sentence (i.e.) on 26.03.2007. As per Section 324 IPC is concerned, the punishment shall be extended to three years imprisonment or with fine or with both. Therefore, I am of the view, the period already undergone by the accused/appellant is treated as sentence and therefore, he is set free. 14. In fine, (i) The Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The judgment of conviction and sentence under Section 307 IPC passed by the trial Court is hereby set aside. (iii) The appellant/accused is convicted under Section 324 IPC. (iv) The period of sentence already undergone by the appellant/accused is treated as sentence and he is set free. (v) Bail bond, if any executed by the appellant/accused, shall stand cancelled.