JUDGMENT B.V. PINTO, J.-This appeal is filed challenging the Judgment dated 15.02.2012 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar in SC No. 60/2010 convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for a period of eight years and to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default, to suffer further imprisonment for a period of five months. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that, on 03.04.2010 at about 9.05 a.m. near Shree Veerabhadreshwara temple in Chamarajanagar town, the appellant with an intention of murdering his wife-Ambika pierced her with a knife on her chest, near right ear and on her back with such an intention and knowledge and under such circumstances and by such an act, if he had caused the death of Ambika, he would have been guilty of murder, therefore, he is alleged to have committed an offence under Section 307 of IPC. The prosecution in order to prove the case against the appellant, has examined in all nine witnesses as PW. 1 to 9 and marked seven documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 and produced MO1 to 4. The defence of the accused was one of total denial. However, by the impugned Judgment, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to convict the appellant and sentenced him as aforestated. 3. The Chamarajanagar town police station received an information on 03.04.2010 at about 9.10 a.m. stating that one Ambika has been admitted in the District hospital, Chamarajanagar who was stabbed by one Shivamurthy and hence PW.7-Janardhan Police Sub-Inspector went to the said hospital at about 9.45 a.m. on 03.04.2010 and recorded the statement of the injured-Ambika. In the said statement she has stated that she has married the accused Shivamurthy about four years back and they were cordial for some time. Thereafter, about two years back she became pregnant and went to her father's house and she delivered a child. But the child died. Thereafter it was disclosed that, her husband is suffering from HIV positive. Even thereafter she had gone to her husband's house about one or two times. Subsequently she did not come. However, her husband is coming and quarrelling with her for about three months prior to the date of incident. There was a quarrel between herself and her husband and in this connection, a complaint was filed before the police. Even thereafter she had gone to her husband's house about one or two times. Subsequently she did not come. However, her husband is coming and quarrelling with her for about three months prior to the date of incident. There was a quarrel between herself and her husband and in this connection, a complaint was filed before the police. The police had given three months time for settling the matter and advised them to live as husband and wife. About ten months prior to this incident, she had got one temporary job as a messenger in the Deputy Commissioner's office, Chamarajanagar and she was commuting from her parent's house every day and going back from Chamarajanagar. Her husband suspected her character and instructed her not to come to the town daily and in this connection he was quarrelling with her. Since her husband was having HIV +ve and that his conduct was not good, she was not joining with him. 4. It is stated in the complaint that on 03.04.2010, she got down from the bus in the Chamarajanagar bus stand and was going towards the Deputy Commissioner's office for work. Her husband who was walking alongwith her told her that she has not changed herself. She informed him not to speak about this issue at that place and requested him to come to her house in the village for the said purpose. It was about 9.05 a.m. She was going near Veerabhadreshwara temple in Chamarajanagar. At that time her husband held her tuft and by saying that she is not listening to his advice and that if she were to be alive, she should listen to his advice. When she did not listen to him, he told that, she should not be alive and so saying he took out a knife and stabbed on her chest and also on her stomach and made her to fall down. He also assaulted on her back even when she was requesting him not to assault. She sustained injuries on both her hands. When she screamed loudly, police who was going on the road, came near her and held her husband and she was shifted in an auto to the hospital after securing a women constable. He also assaulted on her back even when she was requesting him not to assault. She sustained injuries on both her hands. When she screamed loudly, police who was going on the road, came near her and held her husband and she was shifted in an auto to the hospital after securing a women constable. It is stated in the complaint that, by saying that she is having illicit relationship with another person and that she is not changing and that she is not listening to his advice for not coming to the town, he has assaulted herwith an intention to commit her murder. Hence, she has prayed for action against the accused person. Before recording the statement of the complainant, PW.7 had sought the opinion of the Doctor regarding the fitness of Ambika to give statement. 5. The Chamarajanagar police on receipt of the above complaint registered the same in Crime No. 43/2010 for offence under Section 307 of IPC at about 11.00 a.m. on 03.04.2010 and transmitted the FIR to the Court. PW.7-Janardana, Sub-Inspector of Police thereafter arrested the accused who was brought by PW.9-Hallesha and subjected him to judicial custody. PW.7 seized the blooded stain knife-MO1 and subjected the knife to PF. He drew the panchanama of the scene of occurrence as per Ex.P3 in the presence of witnesses. Subsequently, he seized the clothes worn by the injured at the time of the incident as per MOs.2 to 4 and drew the Mahazar-Ex.P4. He recorded the statements of the witnesses. He also collected the earlier complaint of Ambika filed against her husband and after obtaining the opinion from the FSL Office and the wound certificate from the hospital, he filed the charge sheet against the appellant. 6. Since the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the Jurisdictional Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court, Chamarajanagar. The accused was questioned regarding the charge framed against him and he pleaded not guilty to the said charge. 7. Thereafter, the prosecution examined PW. 1-Ambika, the injured. In her statement before the Court, she has reiterated the contents of the complaint given by her in the hospital. She has specifically stated that, since her husband was HIV positive patient which fact she came to know only after the delivery of her child, she was residing in her father's house. Thereafter, the prosecution examined PW. 1-Ambika, the injured. In her statement before the Court, she has reiterated the contents of the complaint given by her in the hospital. She has specifically stated that, since her husband was HIV positive patient which fact she came to know only after the delivery of her child, she was residing in her father's house. Therefore, she was neither living with her husband nor was living a matrimonial life. Nevertheless, she has visited his house twice after she came back to her parent's house. She has also stated that, she has secured a temporary employment in the Deputy Commissioner's Office, Chamarajanagar and she was going to the work from her parent's house. It is in her evidence that, on the date, i.e., on 03.04.2010, at about 9.00 a.m. she came to the Chamarajanagar town and from the bus stand while she was walking towards the Deputy Commissioner office, her husband came and walked alongwith her and both of them reached near Veerabhadreshwara temple. By saying that he would finish her, the accused had stabbed her with a knife on her chest, on her stomach and thereafter on her back and she fell down. She also stated that the accused has again assaulted on her right thigh and right hand and also on her left hand. She screamed and at that time the police came and caught hold of the accused and by securing a woman constable they took her to the GeneralHospital, Chamarajanagar and thereafter she was treated in the said hospital. She also identified the statement given by her to the police while she was in the hospital in the presence of doctor marked as Ex.P1. In the cross examination, it is admitted by her that the differences between herself and the accused arose since she used to reside in her parent's house most of the time. However, she has denied that, since the accused was suffering from HIV +ve, she had an aversion against him. It is suggested that they were not in talking terms and that she has not kept the undertaking given by her earlier in the police station. However, she has stated that the above suggestions are not true. She also denied the suggestion that she was working in the Deputy Commissioner's Office against the wishes of her husband/accused. It is suggested that they were not in talking terms and that she has not kept the undertaking given by her earlier in the police station. However, she has stated that the above suggestions are not true. She also denied the suggestion that she was working in the Deputy Commissioner's Office against the wishes of her husband/accused. However, she has admitted that accused used to come to the office where she was working and was making galata. However, she has not given any complaint to the police. In this connection, it is suggested that she is deposing falsely. PW. 1 has also been cross-examined regarding the incident. However, she has stated in unequivocal terms that accused had stabbed her by means of a chaku which is identified by her in the Court as MO1. 8. PW.2-Maheshamma is the mother of PW. 1. She is not an eye witness to the incident but on enquiry with her daughter, she came to know that she has been assaulted. PW.3 is a member of Panchayath held earlier regarding the misunderstanding between the wife and husband and he has stated that, the police advised the accused and PW.2 to live cordially. PW.4-Usha is a signatory to the mahazar regarding seizure of the knife in the police station. However, she has not supported the case of the prosecution. PW.5 is the witness to the seizure of clothes worn by the injured in the hospital. PW.6 is the head Constable who has received the complaint of Ambika on 11.01.2010 and treated the same as a non-cognizable case and registered the same in NC No. 7/2010. PW.7-Janardhan is the Police Sub-Inspector whose evidence has been discussed in the earlier part of this judgment. 9. PW.8-Dr.Mahesh has stated that on 03.04.2010 at about 9.15 a.m., he has treated Ambika in the hospital and on examination he found the following injuries: (i) Cut injury in the right arm lateral aspect middle 1/3, 2 inch × 1.5 cm. skin deep with bleeding present and it was vertical in direction. (ii) Cut injury over the right arm of lateral aspect 3 cm below the first injury. It is measuring 1.5 inch × 1 cm. Skin deep with bleeding present. It was horizontal in direction. (iii) Cut injury over the right arm middle 1/3, medial side, 1.5 inch × 1 cm, skin deep bleeding present. (ii) Cut injury over the right arm of lateral aspect 3 cm below the first injury. It is measuring 1.5 inch × 1 cm. Skin deep with bleeding present. It was horizontal in direction. (iii) Cut injury over the right arm middle 1/3, medial side, 1.5 inch × 1 cm, skin deep bleeding present. (iv) Cut injury over the right fore arm middle 1/3, 1.5 cm, muscle deep, with bleeding oblique in direction. (v) Stab injury over the upper abdomen on the right side 2 cm lateral mid line. 3.5 cm × 5 cm, muscle deep with bleeding, (vi) Cut injury over the right lateral aspect of chest, 6 cm × 1 cm, skin deep with bleeding with tapering ends, (vii) Stab injury over the right sub scapular region 6 cm × 1cm, muscle deep with bleeding, (viii) Lacerated injury over the left wrist medial aspect 3.5 × 2 cm, bones exposed with bleeding, (ix) Cut injury over the right hand 3rd left, dorsal aspect, 5 cm × 0.5 cm, skin deep vertically placed with bleeding. (x) A small lacerated injury over right breast. Lower lateral aspect 1 cm × 0.5 cm with bleeding. He has opined that injury Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 8 to 10 are simple in nature and injury Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 9 are grievous in nature. He has also further stated that if a person is assaulted with knife, injuries as mentioned in the wound certificate issued by him may be caused. Ex.P5-would certificate issued by him. 10. PW.9-Hallesha is the Head Constable of the town police station, Chamarajanagar. On 03.04.2010, when he was going towards Chamarajanagar Town police station by walk from the private bus stand at about 9.15 a.m., he had seen the incident, in which PW. 1 was assaulted by accused. He has stated before the Court that, when he saw the accused, he was holding the tuft of PW.1 and he took out a knife from his waist and stabbed on her chest and abdomen and made her to fall down and when she appealed accused not to assault and stretched both her hands, the accused also assaulted from the same knife on her both hands. In the meanwhile, he went near him and snatched the knife from the accused. In the meanwhile, he went near him and snatched the knife from the accused. On enquiry, he found that the name of the accused was Shivamurthy and the injured was Ambika who is his wife. Thereafter, he summoned a woman police constable and sent the injured to the Government Hospital, Chamarajanagar. In the cross-examination it is suggested that, he is not an eye witness to the incident and that he is deposing falsely at the instance of PW. 1. 11. It is from the above evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offence and convicted and sentenced him as aforestated. 12. Heard Sri. V.S. Shivaprasad, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. G.M. Srinivasa Reddy, learned HCGP for the State. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution case as brought out before the Court is improbable and that the presence of PW.2-Hallesha is impossible and he has been placed as a witness only to support the case of the prosecution. It is further submitted by him that the accused is alleged to have assaulted his wife all of a sudden. On the basis of the facts deposed by PW. 1 and PW.9, he submits that there is no question of an intention on the part of the accused to commit the murder of PW. 1. He further submits that both PW. 1 and accused were conversing with each other regarding the employment of PW.1 and request of accused to PW. 1 not to continue the work in Chamarajanagar town and being husband, when she did not obey the request of the husband, he would have suddenly stabbed her. Hence he submits that the offence does not fall under Section 307 IPC and hence he prays that accused may be acquitted. 14. Sri. G.M. Srinivasa Reddy, learned HCGP on the other hand submits that, evidence of PW.3 indicates that even in the month of January 2010, there was quarrel between the accused and PW.1 and during that period a compromise was arrived at in the presence ofPW.3-Ningappa. It is also submitted by him that, head constable PW.9-Hallesha was an eye witness and the case was registered against the appellant after PW.9 noticed the injured and accused on the road. It is also submitted by him that, head constable PW.9-Hallesha was an eye witness and the case was registered against the appellant after PW.9 noticed the injured and accused on the road. It is further submitted by him that, the incident having taken place at about 9.10 a.m., it is the time when office staff go to their work and the presence of PW.9-Hallesha- Head constable is more natural and therefore his presence as well as his eye witness account of the incident cannot be doubted at all. He further submits that, if at all the accused had assaulted PW. 1 out of anger, he would have assaulted only once, whereas PW.8-Dr. K.R. Mahesh has stated that, there were as many as 10 stab injuries on the person of PW. 1. It is the case of PW. 1 and PW.9 that, even after falling on the ground accused did not leave his wife and had stabbed again on her back and also on other parts of her body while she trying to ward off such assault. PW.1 has sustained in all 10 injuries indicating that the accused has stabbed 10 times on his wife. It is also in the evidence of PW.1 that, before stabbing her, she has stated that he would not allow her to live in this world and told that he would finish her. Under the circumstances, the intention of the accused to cause the murder of the injured is clear and but for the timely treatment given at the instance of PW.9 by shifting PW.1 to the Hospital immediately, PW.1 would have succumbed to the injuries. Hence offence under Section 307 of IPC is clearly made out and therefore he submits that, the appeal may be dismissed by confirming the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge. 15. I have gone through the entire evidence of prosecution witnesses meticulously. It is seen that PW. 1 is none other than the wife of accused, there is no other reason why PW. 1 should depose falsely against her own husband. The only reason for her to remain away from her husband was that, the accused was suffering from HIV+ve which fact was disclosed after the death of her first child. Nevertheless, it is in the evidence of PW. 1 that she was going to her husband's house often even after she remained in her parent's house. The only reason for her to remain away from her husband was that, the accused was suffering from HIV+ve which fact was disclosed after the death of her first child. Nevertheless, it is in the evidence of PW. 1 that she was going to her husband's house often even after she remained in her parent's house. She has stated in her complaint that, since her husband is a HIV+ve patient, she did not lead a matrimonial life with him. Apart from this fact, there is no reason why PW. 1, should implicate her own husband in a false case. The version of PW. 1 in the complaint as well as in her evidence before the Court is corroborated from the evidence of PW.9, who has also stated that even after falling down on receipt of two blows by the accused, PW.1 was stabbed by the accused for eight more times as is found in the wound certificate issued by PW.8. 16. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the version of PW. 1 contained in the complaint is corroborated by her evidence before the Court and also the evidence of PW.9 who is an eyewitness to the incident and so also the evidence of PW.8-Dr.K.M.Mahesh. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that PW. 1 has been subjected to assault by means of a knife-MO1 by the accused on the date of incident. 17. So far as nature of the offence is concerned, it is seen that the accused has intentionally stabbed on the chest of PW.1 for the first time. He has also assaulted on her stomach and thereafter PW.1 fell down. Even after PW.1 fell down, the accused had stabbed her for eight more times as observed by the medical officer-PW.8. Under the circumstances, it is very clear that, the accused intended to cause such injuries to PW.1 as is likely to cause her death. Out of 10 injuries suffered by PW. 1, three injuries are grievous in nature which adds to the gravity of the act of the accused. In the above circumstances, the findings of the learned Sessions Judge that the accused had committed the offence of attempt to commit murder which is punishable under Section 307 of IPC is neither perverse nor against the settled principles of law, but the same is based on the evidence on record. In the above circumstances, the findings of the learned Sessions Judge that the accused had committed the offence of attempt to commit murder which is punishable under Section 307 of IPC is neither perverse nor against the settled principles of law, but the same is based on the evidence on record. Hence the same needs to be confirmed. 18. Sri. V.S. Shivaprasad, learned counsel for the appellant submits that accused was in custody for five months from 03.04.2010 to 03.09.2010 and for one year four months from the date of judgment till now. He further submits that since both PW. 1 and accused are young, there is every possibility of reconciliation between them as husband and wife and therefore the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone and he may be directed to pay some compensation to PW.1. 19. However, Sri. G.M. Srinivasa Reddy, learned HCGP strongly opposes the said prayer of the learned counsel for the appellant on the ground that as on the date of incident, PW. 1 and accused were living separately and that the accused was suspecting the character of PW. 1, after her joining the Deputy Commissioner's Office and he was preventing her from going to work. If he is released by reducing the sentence, he is likely to harass the victim/PW.1 again and therefore, he submits that the sentence imposed by the learned Session Judge may also be confirmed. 20. I have given my anxious thought to the submissions made by both sides. It is seen from the complaint that, about two years till the first baby was born, PW. 1 and accused were living cordially. PW.1 also stated these facts in her evidence. It is only after PW.1 came to know that accused is suffering from HIV +ve, she did not lead a matrimonial life with him. However, in the complaint itself it is stated that she was visiting her husband's house even after she started to live with her parents. In view of the above position, there is no reason why there should not be any reconciliation between the husband and wife. I am of the considered opinion that, having regard to the disease suffered by the appellant, the above factor is a mitigating circumstance to reduce the sentence imposed on him. In view of the above position, there is no reason why there should not be any reconciliation between the husband and wife. I am of the considered opinion that, having regard to the disease suffered by the appellant, the above factor is a mitigating circumstance to reduce the sentence imposed on him. Hence, balancing both the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that, a period of three years rigorous imprisonment would meet the ends of justice. Hence the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The order of conviction passed against the appellant for offence u/s. 307 IPC is hereby confirmed. (iii) The order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge against the appellant is modified and the appellant is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 30,000/- in default to undergo further S.I. for a period of one year. (iv) Appellant is entitled to set off for the period of imprisonment already undergone by him and he shall suffer balance sentence of imprisonment. (v) The fine imposed on the appellant of Rs. 30,000/- if recovered, shall be paid to PW. 1 as compensation u/s 357 Cr.P.C.