JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.11.1990 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.90/1988, titled as the Azizudeen @ Bakia v. The State of Rajasthan , whereby appellant-accused was convicted for the offence under Sections 307, 326 and 324 IPC and was sentenced as under:- U/s. 307 IPC: 21/2 years' rigorous imprisonment together with fine of Rs. 50/-, in default whereof to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. U/s.326 IPC: Two years' rigorous imprisonment. U/s.324 IPC: One year's rigorous imprisonment. 2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. It was also ordered that the period for which appellant remained in custody during investigation and trial, shall be set off from the principal sentence. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 05.05.1988, at about 12.20 p.m., Ratan Singh (PW-10), ASI, Police Station Sadar Bazar, went to Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur on some information and recorded the statement (Ex.P/6) of complainant-injured Mahendra Singh (PW-5) in which it was alleged that he was working as LDC in the Municipality, Jodhpur in Revenue Section and was a member of encroachment removal team. It was further stated that appellant-accused Azizudeen was also working as labour on daily wages in the said team. On 04.05.1988, at about 6.00 p.m., when he was going to his house, Azizudeen was standing on the way and on being asking to go away, he abused him, also slapped and threatened him. It was further alleged that on 05.05.1988, at about 10.30 a.m., when he was working in his office, appellant-accused came there with knife and inflicted knife blows, which hit him on the spinal-chord and on the neck. On being injured, he fell down and some other colleagues intervened due to which he (Azizudeen) ran away and he (injured) was taken to the hospital. 4. On the basis of this statement (parcha bayan), FIR No.45/1988 (Ex.P/14) was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 332, 307 and 324 IPC at Police Station, Sadar Bazar, Jodhpur and investigation was commenced. After investigation, challan was filed against the appellant-accused on 04.06.1988 in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No.4, Jodhpur. 4. On the basis of this statement (parcha bayan), FIR No.45/1988 (Ex.P/14) was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 332, 307 and 324 IPC at Police Station, Sadar Bazar, Jodhpur and investigation was commenced. After investigation, challan was filed against the appellant-accused on 04.06.1988 in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No.4, Jodhpur. Since the offence under Section 307 IPC was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, therefore, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, after complying the provisions envisaged under Section 207 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned trial court') as per the provisions of Section 209 Cr.P.C. The learned trial court after hearing framed charges under Sections 307, 333 in alternative 326 and 332 in alternative 324 IPC for which he denied and claimed for trial. 5. To substantiate the charges against the accused, prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses and proved certain documents. Thereafter appellant-accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he claimed prosecution evidence as false and stated that due to enmity he has been falsely implicated and didnt choose to lead defence evidence. After hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused, learned trial court convicted the appellant-accused and sentenced as aforesaid. 6. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence appellant preferred this appeal before this court which was admitted for consideration vide order dated 28.11.1990 and notice was issued to respondent State and record of trial court was called for. 7. Heard Mr. JS Choudhary, learned senior counsel for appellant- accused and Mr. Pankaj Awasthi learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and record of the learned trial court. 8. To decide the issues raised by the learned counsel for the parties, a brief synopsis of evidence on record, as led by the prosecution is apposite. 9. Sher Singh (PW-1) though turned hostile but stated that on 05.05.1988, at about 10.45 a.m., when he returned from the bank, he came to know that someone has assaulted Mahendra Singh by knife. He did not disclosed the name of the offender. 10. Sajjan Raj (PW-2) proved sight inspection memo (Ex.P/2) wherein it was mentioned that at the place of occurrence, blood stains were there at various places in the room. 11. He did not disclosed the name of the offender. 10. Sajjan Raj (PW-2) proved sight inspection memo (Ex.P/2) wherein it was mentioned that at the place of occurrence, blood stains were there at various places in the room. 11. Virendra Singh (PW-3) stated that on 16.05.1988, he received two packets from Constable Inder Singh with letter (Ex.P/3) addressed to the Superintendent of Police against receipt (Ex.P/4). 12. Ramesh Chandra (PW-4) was though turned hostile but he deposed that on the date of incident, he reached on duty at about 11-11.30 a.m. and he did not see the incident. 13. Mahendra Singh (PW-5) injured deposed that on 05.05.1988, when he was working in his office on his seat, appellant-accused Azizudeen came there on which he asked him to go away as there was scuffle between them on 04.05.1988. After that he (appellant-accused) took out a knife and inflicted blows which hit him on the spinal chord and on the neck due to which he fell down. On this incident, some colleagues gathered there and one colleague Om Singh helped him and thereafter he went to Sojati Gate Police Chowki, which was situated at a distance of 70-80 ft. from the office and reported the incident on which constable asked him to go to hospital on which he went to hospital with a constable and one Prakash, where he remained admitted for about 29 days. While admitted in the hospital, police took his statement (Ex.P/6) on the basis of which FIR was registered. 14. Prakash (PW-6) corroborated with Mahendra Singh (PW- 5) and deposed that on the date of incident, at about 10.30- 11.00 a.m., when he was sitting in his shop situated near the back-side gate of the Municipality, Mahendra Singh, in the injured condition, came to him and asked him to bring taxi and thereafter they went to the police chowki at Sojati Gate from where he was sent to the hospital where he was admitted and thereafter he returned. 15. Himmat Singh (PW-7) proved recovery memo (Ex.P/7) of blood stained clothes of injured Mahendra Singh (PW-5) viz., bushirt, pant, handkerchief, langot etc., which were sealed and were handed over to Prithvi Singh (PW-13) by Surendra Singh, brother of Mahendra Singh. It was also stated by him that he can identify the said clothes, which were Bushirt (Art.1), Pant (Art.2), Handkerchier (Art.3) and Langot (Art.4). 16. It was also stated by him that he can identify the said clothes, which were Bushirt (Art.1), Pant (Art.2), Handkerchier (Art.3) and Langot (Art.4). 16. Laxman Singh (PW-8) was though turned hostile but he proved recovery memo (Ex.P/9) of knife. It was stated by him that he was called by the police and took him to a house at Guljarpura belonging to one Chand Khan from where a knife was recovered from below the bed. 17. Jagdish Jugtawat (PW-9), is the medical jurist, who examined injured Mahendra Singh and prepared injury report (Exx.P/10), according to which, injured suffered the following injuries:- "(1) Incised wound 21/2 cm x 1/2 cm X (?) deep on left side of neck posteriorly upper 1/2 position obliquely. (2) Incised wound 21/2 cm x 1/2 cm X (?) deep on left lumber region in left abdomen obliquely." 18. It was opined by him that the injury No.1 was simple in nature and injury No.2 was dangerous to life. He further stated that these injuries could have been caused by knife (Art.5) (recovered in pursuance information of accused from his possession). 19. Ratan Singh (PW-10) deposed that at the relevant time he was posted as ASI, PS, Sadar, Jodhpur and on 05.05.1988, he recorded the statement (Ex.P/6) of Mahendra Singh at Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur. 20. Ramchandra (PW-11), SHO, PS Sadar, Jodhpur stated that he received the statement of Mahendra Singh by Ratan Singh (PW-10) on the basis of which he chalked the FIR (Ex.P/14). 21. Om Singh (PW-12) turned hostile and deposed that on the date of incident he reached the office at 11.00-11.30 a.m. then he came to know about the incident. It was stated by him that he did not see the incident. 22. Prithvi Singh (PW-13) was the investigating officer of the case who deposed about the investigation of the case and stated that during investigation, he investigated the place of incident, which was situated in the Revenue Department of Municipal Council, Jodhpur, which was identified by Sher Singh and on the place of incident, blood stains were found and blood stains were also found outside the room. He also prepared site inspection memo (Ex.P/16). He also prepared site inspection memo (Ex.P/16). He also sealed the blood stained clothes, belonging to injured Mahendra Singh (PW-5) handed over to him by Surendra Singh, brother of injured Mahendra Singh and prepared recovery memo (Ex.P/7) in the presence of Himmat Singh and Gordhan Singh. After investigation, the accused Azizuddin was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.P/17. The accused Azizuddin furnished information about the weapon of offence and stated that the same is lying in the room where he was residing, which was recorded in writing vide Ex.P/18 and in pursuance of that information the knife was recovered in the presence of Laxman Singh and Manohar Singh and the same was stained with blood and also prepared recovery memo thereto Ex.P/9. It was further stated by him that during investigation he recorded the statement of witness Sher Singh (Ex.P/1), Ramesh (Ex.P/5) and Om Singh (Ex.P/15). He also received the report from FSL, Jaipur, which was taken on record as Ex.P/19. 23. Bhanwar Dan (PW-14) stated that he was posted as Constable at P.S. Sadar, Jodhpur where Jagir Singh (PW-16), Malkhana Incharge, gave him three packets to be deposited in the office of the Superintendent of Police on 16.05.1988 which he deposited and handed over the receipt to Jagir Singh. 24. Dr. Sukhdev Chand Lodha (PW-15) stated that on 05.05.1988, he was posted as Professor of Surgery, Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur and he operated the injured Mahendra Singh and also prepared operation notes (Ex.P/12). It was also deposed that there was one steb wound which went towards Kidney and the nerves and blood vessels were cut. There was another steb wound on the neck which was when opened, no injury was found on any vessel. It was also stated that if the injured was not operated in time, then he could have died due to hemorrhagic shock. 25. Jagir Singh (PW-16) deposed that on 06.05.1988, he was posted as Malkhana Incharge at P.S. Sadar, Jodhpur. On 06.05.1988 and 08.05.1988, ASI Prithvi Singh submitted sealed packets, which were deposited by him in the malkhana at S.No.160 and 162 respectively. On 16.05.1988, he handed over the sealed packets to Constable Bhanwardan to be sent to the office of Superintendent of Police. 26. On 06.05.1988 and 08.05.1988, ASI Prithvi Singh submitted sealed packets, which were deposited by him in the malkhana at S.No.160 and 162 respectively. On 16.05.1988, he handed over the sealed packets to Constable Bhanwardan to be sent to the office of Superintendent of Police. 26. Inder Singh (PW-17) deposed that on 16.05.1988, he was posted in the office of Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur and on that day he received two sealed packets to be deposited with FSL, Jodhpur, which he deposited in lieu of receipt (Ex.P/4). 27. Mr. JS Choudhary, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-accused submitted that all the witnesses, viz. Sher Singh (PW-1), Ramesh Chand (PW-4), Laxman Singh (PW-8) and Om Singh (PW-12) have turned hostile and the statement of the injured Mahendra Singh (PW- 5) is not worth believable. It was also submitted that there are contradictions in the statements of Medical Jurist Jagdish Jugtawat (PW-9) and Dr. Sukhdev Chand Lodha (PW-15). It was submitted that Jagdish Jugtawat (PW-9) only stated that the injured suffered injuries dangerous to life but did not give any reason for this opinion. Thus, he is liable to be acquitted. It was also submitted that even if the statement of injured Mahendra Singh (PW-5) is taken to be true, then also the case does not travel beyond Section 308 or 324 IPC. 28. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the appellant-accused has placed reliance upon the judgments delivered in the cases of Roopa v. The State of Rajasthan [1966 RLW 138] , Ganga Ram v. State [1968 Cr.L.J. 134] , State of Gujarat v. Samaj [1969 Cr.L.J. 1498] , Brahmanand v. State of Rajasthan [1970 RLW 130] and Munna v. State of Rajasthan [1984 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 529]. 29. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the injured remained in hospital for 24 days and since the treatment was given in time, therefore, his life could be saved. Otherwise, the injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Hence, it was prayed that the appeal may be dismissed. 30. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar and gone through the impugned judgment and available record. 31. Otherwise, the injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Hence, it was prayed that the appeal may be dismissed. 30. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar and gone through the impugned judgment and available record. 31. From the above statements of witnesses, specially from the statement of injured Mahendra Singh (PW-5), it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant-accused inflicted injuries by knife on his body on spinal-chord and neck, which are vital parts of the body and the knife (Art.5) was recovered in pursuance of the information furnished by the appellant-accused from his house, i.e. from his conscious possession. After seeing knife (Art.5), Dr. Jagdish Jugtawat (PW-9) has clearly stated that the injuries could have been caused by this knife. Therefore, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant-accused inflicted knife blows on the body of Mahendra Singh (PW-5) and as per the medical evidence, injury No.2 was found dangerous to life. 32. In the case of Roopa v. The State of Rajasthan (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court, after considering the relevant observations made in the books on medical jurisprudence, observed as under:- "(1) That danger to life from an injury should be imminent to constitute it as a grievous one. Haemorrhage, shock or injuries implicating important structures or organs are instances of injuries causing imminent danger. Extensiveness of the injuries may also cause imminent danger. Injuries which only cause remote danger to life cannot be treated as dangerous to life. (2) That the concept of an injury dangerous to life cannot in the very nature of things be very precise. While there may be cases which can be easily placed either in the category of injury dangerous to life or in the other category, there may be marginal and border line cases where it may be very difficult to categorise the injuries as dangerous to life or not and in such cases the medical experts may also differ. (3) That the concept of injury dangerous to life being not very precise, it is necessary that the medical witness should not remain content with making bald statement that the injury in a particular case is dangerous to human life. (3) That the concept of injury dangerous to life being not very precise, it is necessary that the medical witness should not remain content with making bald statement that the injury in a particular case is dangerous to human life. He should place all relevant datas namely, whether the injury caused haemorrhage or shock or implicated important structures or organs or was very extensive or otherwise caused imminent danger and should also state the various grounds on which he considers the injury to be dangerous one. (4) That in arriving at the finding whether an injury is dangerous to human life or not, the court should apply its mind to all the relevant datas brought on record and to the reasons given by the medical witness or witnesses and record its finding after an over all consideration of the materials on record, giving reasons for its conclusion." 33. Here, in the case in hand, as per the statement of Dr. Sukhdev Chand Lodha (PW-15), who operated the injured and prepared operation notes (Ex.P/12), found stab wound which went towards kidney and the nerves and blood vessels were cut and found that if the injured was not operated in time, then he could have died due to hemorrhagic shock. In Roopa v. State of Rajasthan (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this court has already observed that hemorrhage is instance of injury causing imminent danger, therefore, the injury, which in absence of any treatment, sufficient to cause death in normal course, can be treated as dangerous to life. Therefore, Dr. Jagdish Jugtawat (PW-9) rightly treated the injury No.2 as dangerous to life after considering the operation notes (Ex.P/12). Hence, the argument of the learned counsel Shri Choudhary that no injury was proved as dangerous to life has no merit. 34. Now, the question remains that whether the act of the appellant-accused comes under the purview of attempt to murder. 35. Murder is defined in Section 300 IPC, which reads as under:- "Section 300. Hence, the argument of the learned counsel Shri Choudhary that no injury was proved as dangerous to life has no merit. 34. Now, the question remains that whether the act of the appellant-accused comes under the purview of attempt to murder. 35. Murder is defined in Section 300 IPC, which reads as under:- "Section 300. Murder.- Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or Secondly.-If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or- Thirdly.-If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or- Fourthly.-If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid." 36. Here, in the case in hand, from the statements of injured Mahendra Singh (PW-5),it is clear that a day before the date of incident, there was some altercation between the injured and the appellant-accused and he slapped the injured and threatened him. Thereafter, on the date of incident, i.e. on 05.05.1988, when injured Mahendra Singh (PW-5), as usual came to office and was working, appellant-accused reached there armed with knife and inflicted repeated blows on the vital parts of the body. Bringing knife in office and inflicting repeated blows on the vital parts of the body clearly shows that intention of the appellant-accused was to kill Mahendra Singh and it was in his knowledge that causing injury on neck and back/abdomen is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and the injury No.2 was found as dangerous to life. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was no motive, intention and knowledge of the appellant-accused to commit murder. 37. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was no motive, intention and knowledge of the appellant-accused to commit murder. 37. So far as case law cited by the appellant In the case of Ganga Ram v. State (supra), is concerned, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, while considering the applicability of Section 307 IPC, held as under:- "For applying Section 307, Penal Code, it is not necessary that the injury capable of causing death should have been actually inflicted. If injury is actually inflicted, it is not necessary that the injury should be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or that it should be on any vital organ. The nature of the injury may be of some consideration in arriving at the conclusion whether the accused had the intention to cause death. The liability for offence under Section 307 will depend upon the circumstances under which the offence had been committed. The intention can be gathered from the nature of the weapon and the parts of the body where the injuries are inflicted." 38. Considering the facts of this case, this case law does not help the appellant-accused. Rather, it supports the prosecution as the appellant-accused inflicted injuries on vital parts of the body of injured, out of which one was found as dangerous to life. 39. In Brahamanand v. State of Rajasthan (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this court observed that since the motive was not proved, therefore the attempt to murder cannot be assumed. But, in the present case, as already discussed, a day before the incident, there was some altercation between the appellant-accused and the injured and thereafter the appellant-accused brought knife from his house in the office and without any instant altercation, inflicted knife blows on the vital parts of his body. Therefore, motive and intention is clear that the appellant-accused wanted to kill the injured due to previous day's scuffle. As such, this judgment also does not help the appellant-accused. 40. In Munna v. State of Rajasthan (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench, while considering the fact that the doctor did not state that the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, held that the accused is punishable under Section 308 IPC and not under Section 307 IPC. But, in the case in hand, Dr. Jagdish Jugtawat (PW-9) and Dr. But, in the case in hand, Dr. Jagdish Jugtawat (PW-9) and Dr. Sukhdev Chand Lodha (PW- 15) have clearly stated that the injury No.2 was dangerous to life. Thus, this judgment also does not help the appellant-accused. 41. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that all the eye-witnesses have turned hostile and the statement of injured is not worth believable is concerned, the injured Mahendra Singh (PW-5) has clearly stated that the appellant-accused repeatedly put knife blows and that too on the vital part of the body, which clearly shows his intention to kill him, which is corroborated by the medical evidence. Further, the knife (Art.5) was recovered in pursuance of information from his conscious possession having blood, though blood group could not be detected. Thus, it can safely be said that the statement of injured is believable and cannot be discarded merely on the basis that all the eye-witnesses have turned hostile. To prove a fact, the quantity of witnesses are not important but quality of witness is important. If statement of a single witness seems to be credential, then the accused can be convicted on the basis of the testimony of sole witness. The offence was committed in broad day light in the office and no enmity was pointed out by the appellant-accused to implicate him falsely and it is not believable that living actual culprit, the injured implicated the appellant-accused falsely. Therefore, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant-accused inflicted knife blows on the body of injured Mahendra Singh (PW-5). 42. Since the injury No.2 was found dangerous to life and the offence under Section 307 IPC is proved against the appellant-accused, therefore, he is not liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 326 IPC as he is liable to be convicted under Section 307 IPC. So far as Section 324 IPC is concerned, injury No.1 was found simple in nature and was of sharp-edged weapon, therefore, he is also liable to be convicted under Section 324 IPC. Therefore, the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant rendered in state of Gujarat v. Samaj (supra) does not help him. 43. As discussed above, since the appellant-accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, therefore, no separate conviction is required for the offence under Section 326 IPC. Therefore, the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant rendered in state of Gujarat v. Samaj (supra) does not help him. 43. As discussed above, since the appellant-accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, therefore, no separate conviction is required for the offence under Section 326 IPC. As such, conviction of the appellant-accused and sentence awarded for the offence under Section 326 IPC is set aside. 44. So far as sentences awarded for the offences under Sections 307 and 324 IPC are concerned, cannot be said to be excessive and the learned trial court has already taken lenient view considering the facts and circumstances of the case, which does not warrant any interference by this court. 45. The appeal stands stands dismissed with the above modification and conviction and sentence awarded against the appellant-accused Azizuddin for the offences under Sections 307 and 324 IPC is maintained. 46. The appellant is on bail. He is directed to surrender before the learned trial court to receive the remaining sentence. If he fails to surrender before the learned trial court, the learned trial court will be free to take steps to send the appellant-accused in State custody for serving the remaining sentence. 47. The record of the court be sent back with a copy of this judgment forthwith for compliance.Appeal Dismissed. *******