JUDGMENT A.S. PACHHAPURE, J.-The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC on a trial held by the Sessions Judge, Mysore. 2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as under: PW1-Parvathamma is the mother of PW2-Ravi. She has another son by name Shashidhar. PW3-Renuka is the wife of Shashidhar. The appellant is distantly related to PW1-Parvathamma. Her two sons i.e. Shashidhar and PW2-Ravi were residing separately and the house was partitioned into three portions. Her two sons had occupied the two portions, whereas, PW1-Parvathamma was in occupation of the other. On 10.9.2004 at about 4.30 p.m. PW1 Parvathamma went to her land. At about 5.00 p.m. the appellant met her and after talking for some time PW1 told him that she would go to her house. While she was proceeding, the appellant came from a hind side and by use of the towel tied her neck to strangulate and after dragging her to ground, when she was suffocating, he tried to throttle her saying that he would not leave her and meanwhile PW2 is said to have come to the land and rescued her from the hands of the appellant. Later PW2, PW5 and others shifted her to the hospital for treatment. PW7-Head Constable who received the requisition of admission of PW1-Parvathamma in the hospital, went and recorded her statement Ex.P1 and after return to the police station registered Crime No. 123/2004 for the offence under Section 307 IPC. He sent the complaint-Ex.P1, FIR-Ex.P9 to the Magistrate through PW8. PW9-PSI held the spot mahazar Ex.P2 in the presence of PW6 and another and recorded the statements of the witnesses. He tried to trace the accused and deputed the staff for the said purpose. The accused (the appellant herein) appeared on 22.11.2004. On obtaining the anticipatory bail, PW9 arrested him and the appellant volunteered to produce the towel and accordingly in the presence of PWs.2 and 6 led them to his farmhouse and produced the Towel MO.1 and it was seized under the mahazar Ex.P3. He secured the injury certificate Ex.P4 and obtained the opinion of the doctor Ex.P5. On completion of the investigation he filed the charge sheet for the offence under Section 307 IPC. During the trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 9 and got marked the documents Exs.P1 to P9 and MO.1. He secured the injury certificate Ex.P4 and obtained the opinion of the doctor Ex.P5. On completion of the investigation he filed the charge sheet for the offence under Section 307 IPC. During the trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 9 and got marked the documents Exs.P1 to P9 and MO.1. The statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No defence evidence was led. The trial Court after hearing the counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the material on record, convicted the appellant for the charge under Section 307 IPC and ordered him to undergo imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader. 4. The point that arises for my consideration is: "Whether the appellant has made out any grounds to warrant interference in the conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC?" 5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that PWs.2 and 5 are not the eyewitnesses and there is ample material on record to discard their evidence. It is also his contention that PW1-Parvathamma attempted to commit suicide and to save her dignity she has submitted a false complaint implicating the appellant. It is his contention that her evidence is not trustworthy and the medical evidence do not support her version. It is also contended that her son Shashidhar was involved in criminal cases and she was under pressure, hence she attempted to commit suicide and when she failed in her attempt, to protect her dignity, submitted a complaint at the instance of her well wishers. On these ground she has sought for setting aside the conviction and also the sentence. 6. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader supporting the judgment and order of the trial Court contended that PW1-Parvathamma is the injured and the medical evidence supports her version and therefore he claims that the trial Court was justified in awarding conviction. He also submits that the sentence ordered by the trial Court is just and reasonable. 7. He also submits that the sentence ordered by the trial Court is just and reasonable. 7. PW2-Ravi is the son of Parvathamma (PW1) and he states in his evidence that at 5.00 p.m. on the date of incident as usual he went to the land and he saw the appellant tying the towel over her neck and the appellant after seeing him ran away from the place of incident. He also states that he did not know what actually the appellant did at that time. In the cross-examination he submits that he is residing separately from his mother and his brother. PW1-Parvathamma having attempted to commit suicide at the relevant time in her land. 8. If really PW2 was present at the time of the incident having admitted his mother in the hospital on the same day, within few hours of the incident he could have submitted his complaint against the appellant before the police. The evidence on record reveals that the appellant was also present with PW2-Ravi at the time when PW1 was in the hospital even before lodging the complaint. If really PW2 had seen the appellant committing the offence, rather it is improbable to believe that PW2-Ravi could be present with the appellant in the hospital at the relevant point of time. In view of his version in the chief-examination that he did not give attention to know as to what appellant did with his mother by using the towel, his evidence does not inspire the confidence. Scrutiny of the evidence and the other material placed on record raises a doubt even with regard to the presence of PW2-Ravi at the time of the incident. 9. PW5-Ramchandra states in his evidence that at relevant point of time PW2-Ravi was proceeding ahead of him and when he went to the land he saw PW1-Parvathamma in an unconscious condition. He brought a car to shift her to the hospital at the request of PW2-Ravi. He states that he did not know the reasons as to why she fell unconscious at the place of the incident. He also states in the chief-examination that he has not seen any person doing any act on the victim Parvathamma (PW1). He brought a car to shift her to the hospital at the request of PW2-Ravi. He states that he did not know the reasons as to why she fell unconscious at the place of the incident. He also states in the chief-examination that he has not seen any person doing any act on the victim Parvathamma (PW1). He was treated hostile by the prosecution and he admits in the cross-examination that he is a friend of the accused and he denies having witnessed the incident of the appellant strangulating PW1-Parvathamma by using a towel. 10. So, from his evidence it is clear that he went to the place only after the incident and he has not noticed an attempt of the appellant to kill PW1-Parvathamma by strangulating her with the towel MO.1. So, the prosecution cannot take the benefit of the evidence of PWs.2 and 5 to prove the incident. 11. In the complaint PW1-Parvathamma states that she went to the land at 4.30 p.m. But in her evidence she states that the appellant came to her house at about 10.00 a.m. She offered tiffin and the appellant did not take it, as he had the tiffin earlier and asked her to come to the land. He states that after some time she went to the land and after 10.00 minutes the appellant came to the land. There appears some discrepancy as to the timing of arrival of PW1 to the land. Though in the complaint it is stated that it was at 4.30 p.m., it is not so stated in the evidence in so many words. Anyhow, this discrepancy in the evidence of PW1 appears to be minor and much importance need not be attributed. So far as the incident is concerned, she states that the appellant came from her hind side and by using the towel put it around the neck and started squeezing. She requested him to leave her. She fell down. The appellant continued the strangulation and as there was no much pressure, the appellant left the towel and attempted to throttle her. She states that at that time a boy came and the appellant left her and went away. Even in respect of the presence of the boy at the time of the incident, there is no reference in the complaint. She states that at that time a boy came and the appellant left her and went away. Even in respect of the presence of the boy at the time of the incident, there is no reference in the complaint. The arrival of a boy at the time of the incident has been stated by PW1 for the first time in her evidence. In the complaint she states that it was PW2 who came at the time of the incident and about the arrival of an unknown boy it appears to be an improvement which has been stated by PW1 for the first time in the Court. This improvement is of no help to the prosecution, as the investigating agency has not brought on record any material about the presence of the boy at the time of the incident. But anyhow, this discrepancy is minor. Though her evidence reveals that her additional statement was recorded on 16.09.2004, she states, it was recorded after 7 days. This cannot be a discrepancy for the reason that there is only one day difference between the date of recording of her statement and the day that she stated in her evidence. 12. As could be seen from the other evidence led by the prosecution so far as the incident is concerned, it is the version of PW1 that while she was in the land and was talking with the appellant for some time and when she intend to go back to her house, when she was so proceeding, the appellant came from her hind side and by putting a towel over the neck tried to cause her death by strangulation. It is her consistent version that she fell down and as the pressure of the towel was insufficient to kill her, the appellant is said to have left the towel and tried to throttle her. To this extent her version is consistent with the contents of the complaint Ex.P1. 13. On appreciation of the evidence of PWs.2 and 5, their evidence cannot be believed and also their presence at the time of the incident. It appears that PW2 came later to the land and having seen his mother having fallen to the ground, shifted her to the hospital. 13. On appreciation of the evidence of PWs.2 and 5, their evidence cannot be believed and also their presence at the time of the incident. It appears that PW2 came later to the land and having seen his mother having fallen to the ground, shifted her to the hospital. So, from this material on record it could be said that at the time when the incident took place, none others were present and she was seen by PW2-Ravi, her son in a severe condition and was shifted to the hospital for treatment. 14. PW7-the Head Constable after receipt of the requisition went to the hospital and on enquiry he found that she was in a condition to give her statement and therefore recorded the complaint Ex.P1 in between 12.45 p.m. to 14.15 p.m. Though earlier to this complaint-Ex.P1 the appellant is said to be present in the hospital, disappeared, later. His presence in the hospital prior to Ex.P1 indicates that PW1 was not in a position to speak and the incident was disclosed for the first time when the complaint Ex.P1 was recorded. When PW2 and others were unaware of the manner of the incident, there was no reason for them to doubt the presence of the appellant at the time of the treatment. In this context, it cannot be said that the appellant was an innocent man and his presence in the hospital before the complaint Ex.P1 is insufficient to indicate his innocence. 15. PW4-Mahadevaiah is the doctor who examined the injured. He states in his evidence that at about 7.30 p.m. PW1-Parvathamma was brought to the hospital and he found a ligature mark over the neck measuring 10 × 3 cms. This injury on the neck was a simple injury and Ex.P4 is the certificate issued by PW4 in this regard. She was admitted in the hospital with a history of assault. At the time when she was brought to the hospital, she was not in a position to speak, she was groaning, therefore, she was admitted in the hospital as an inpatient. He also sent the requisition to the police after her admission. After recording the complaint, police sought for information to know as to whether towel (MO1) could be sufficient to cause injury, in case, if effort is made to strangulate by a towel. He also sent the requisition to the police after her admission. After recording the complaint, police sought for information to know as to whether towel (MO1) could be sufficient to cause injury, in case, if effort is made to strangulate by a towel. After examining PW1 he has given his report (Ex.P5) and states that the ligature mark on the neck of PW1 could be caused by using towel in an attempt to strangulate with force. In the cross examination, it is suggested to him that such injury could be caused, in case, if a women tries to commit suicide by using a saree. PW4 says that it is rare. 16. Anyhow, the evidence of PW4-the doctor corroborates the evidence of PW1-Parvathamma. She has stated in her evidence that the appellant attempted to strangulate her neck by using towel (MO1) and when she fell down he continued his attempt and when the towel was insufficient to cause much force over the neck he left the towel and he attempted to throttle. So this version of PW1 is supported by the evidence of doctor PW4. So far as the offence is concerned, though PW4 admits in the cross examination that in rare cases, it is possible that the ligature mark could be caused in an attempt to commit suicide by using a saree by hanging, there are no circumstances at the place of incident and no saree was seized by the police under the panchanama (Ex.P3). Therefore, the circumstances brought on record are not consistent with the evidence of PW1. None of the circumstances are consistent with the defence of appellant. 17. Generally, an injured does not implicate an innocent and also does not leave a person who has really caused the harm. The evidence of injured stands at a higher footing and such evidence cannot be lightly rejected. This principle is adopted by all the Courts in appreciating the evidence of injured. If PW1 attempts to commit suicide by using saree, there was no reason for her to implicate the appellant. 18. It is brought on record in the evidence of PW3 and also that of injured PW1 that the appellant had come to the house of Shashidar the son of PW1 when PW3 was alone and at that time, PW1 had advised the appellant not to come to the house when Renuka was alone. 18. It is brought on record in the evidence of PW3 and also that of injured PW1 that the appellant had come to the house of Shashidar the son of PW1 when PW3 was alone and at that time, PW1 had advised the appellant not to come to the house when Renuka was alone. This was the reason for the appellant to make an attempt to end the life of PW1. Though it is in the evidence that Shashidar the son of PW1 was involving in criminal cases that cannot be a cause of any pressure on PW1 and she was residing separately from her son. The evidence reveals that accused had purchased a cow worth Rs. 12,000/- from PW1 and he has paid only Rs. 4,000/- and a sum of Rs. 8,000/- was still due. This circumstance brought on record cannot be a ground for PW1 to commit suicide but it can be a motive for the accused for this incidence. So the defence of appellant that there was attempt on the part of PW1 to commit suicide is improbable and unacceptable. At the same time, the evidence of PW1 who is an injured having been corroborated by the evidence of doctor PW4 there appears to be no reason to discard her evidence. 19. No doubt, there is some delay in lodging the FIR. This delay has been explained properly by the prosecution and as it is stated by PW4-the doctor that injured was not in a condition to speak at the time when she was admitted in the hospital, recording of her statement on the next day appears to be reasonable. 20. The act of strangulating a person by using a towel speaks his intention to take the life. The act of appellant is intending to kill PW1 by using a towel and strangulating her indicates his intention to end the life of injured PW1. Therefore, the conviction of appellant for the charge under section 307 IPC appears to be just and reasonable. 21. So far as the sentence is concerned, the Trial Court has awarded imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs. 2,000/-. The imprisonment ordered appears to be on the higher side. Therefore, the conviction of appellant for the charge under section 307 IPC appears to be just and reasonable. 21. So far as the sentence is concerned, the Trial Court has awarded imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs. 2,000/-. The imprisonment ordered appears to be on the higher side. Taking into consideration the nature of offence, the manner of incident, the punishment provided, the interest of justice would be met, in case, if the sentence is modified by awarding imprisonment for 3 years. 22. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of the appellant for the charge under Section 307 IPC is affirmed by modifying the sentence. The appellant is ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine as ordered by the Trial Court with the default sentence. The Trial Court shall secure the presence of appellant to undergo the sentence.