JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, Judge Appellant-convict Bikram Singh, hereinafter referred to as the accused, has assailed the judgment dated 29.9.2008, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in Sessions Case No.7-R/7 of 2006, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Bikram Singh, whereby he stands convicted for having offence punishable under the provisions of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and pay fine of Rs. 25,000/-, out of which Rs. 10,000/- on realization is to be paid as compensation to injured Udham Lal (PW-2), and in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. 2. It is the case of prosecution that on 1.5.2005, accused was working in the fields of Pradeep Kumar (PW-1) alongwith complainant/injured Udham Lal (PW-2). PW-2 asked the accused to collect the bushes which they had cut. At that accused lost temper and attacked PW-1 with a Drat. Somehow, PW-1 was able to save himself. Thereafter, accused gave a blow with the Drat to PW-2 on his neck, as a result of which he sustained serious injuries. To save his life, PW-2 ran away from the spot. Accused chased him with the Drat, but mid way fled away. Both PW-1 and PW-2 lodged report (Ex.PW-6/A) at Police Post, Sarswati Nagar, on the basis of which FIR No.31/05, dated 1.5.2004 (should be 1.5.2005) (Ex.PW-6/B) was registered at Police Station, Jubbal. Matter was investigated by SHO Pritam Singh (PW-10), who conducted necessary investigation on the spot. Injured was administered medical treatment at Civil Hospital, Jubbal, where Dr. Prakash Daroch (PW-11) attended to him and issued MLC (Ex. PW-11/A & 11/B). Accused, after few days, was apprehended and arrested. On the basis of his disclosure statement (Ex. PD) made in the presence of Pradeep Kumar (PW-1) and Anand Chauhan (not examined), Drat (Ex.P-1) was recovered by the police. During investigation, police also took into possession blood stained clothes of the injured. 3. With the completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court for trial. 4. Accused was charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 5. During investigation, police also took into possession blood stained clothes of the injured. 3. With the completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court for trial. 4. Accused was charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 5. In order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses and statement of the accused under the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded, in which he pleaded false implication. 6. Based on the testimonies of witnesses and other material placed on record, trial Court convicted the accused of offence punishable under the provisions of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as aforesaid. Hence, the present appeal. 7. Mr. Harish Behl, learned counsel for the accused, has made the following submissions: (i) findings returned by the Court below are based on incorrect and incomplete appreciation of prosecution witnesses; and (ii) in any event, sentence imposed is grossly disproportionate to the offence allegedly committed by the accused. 8. It is the admitted case of the accused, as is evidence from his statement, recorded under the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that on 1.5.2005 he was working with the injured (PW-2) and PW-1 in the fields. It also stands admitted that PW-2 had asked the accused to collect the bushes cut by PW-1. Thus, presence of the accused on the spot of crime is not disputed. Accused also admits that he was working as an employee of Pradeep Kumar (PW-1). 9. It is a settled position of law that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of an injured, if it inspires confidence. Injured is no doubt an interested witness, as is argued before us, but then we need not look for any corroboration if his testimony otherwise is inspiring in confidence. 10. The Apex Court in Baitullah and another v. State of U.P., (1998) 1 SCC 509 , has succinctly dealt with the issue of appreciation of testimony of a victim as also an interested witness. It stands clarified that an interested witness would only be such who has some direct interest in having the accused somehow or the other convicted for some animus or for some other reason. It stands clarified that an interested witness would only be such who has some direct interest in having the accused somehow or the other convicted for some animus or for some other reason. The Court clarified that merely because a witness has interest, by itself, cannot be a ground to discard his testimony. 11. Apex Court has also clarified the difference between an “interested witness” and a “natural witness” in Chittar Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (2003) 6 SCC 397 ; Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 14 SCC 150 ; State of Maharashtra v. Tulshiram Bhanudas Kamble and others, (2007) 14 SCC 627; Takdir Samsuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat and another, (2011) 10 SCC 158 ; Rakesh and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2011) 9 SCC 698 ; Thoti Manohar v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2012) 7 SCC 723 ; and Kanhaiya Lal and others v. State of Rajasthan, (2013) 5 SCC 655 . We find the testimonies of both PW-1 and PW-2 to be that of natural witnesses and not interested witnesses in the sense that they would ensure conviction at all cost and under any circumstances, even if they have to depose falsely. Significantly, there are no witnesses to the occurrence of the incident. 12. From the testimony of Dr. Anil Malhotra (PW-4) and Dr. Prakash Daroch (PW-11), it is evidently clear that the injured sustained injuries on his body. PW-11, who examined the injured, referred him to the IGMC, State Hospital at Shimla, where he was examined by Dr. Anil Malhotra (PW-4), who has proved MLC (Ex. PW-11/A and Ex. PW-11/B). Medical record shows that the injured suffered the following injuries: An incised wound over right side of neck (posteriorly) extending from just behind the pinna of right ear upto just below the occipital protuberance, 14.00 cm in length, curved shaped, bony deep, fracture/dislocation of the underlying bones, so advised X-rays of skull and cervical spine. 13. The doctor has clearly opined that such injuries could be caused with a blow by the weapon of offence (Ex. P-1). Doctors have totally ruled out such injuries being caused by fall. 14. Conjoint reading of testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2, in our considered view, evidently establishes the prosecution case, beyond reasonable doubt, of the accused having given blow with a Drat on the body of PW-2, as a result of which he sustained injuries. P-1). Doctors have totally ruled out such injuries being caused by fall. 14. Conjoint reading of testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2, in our considered view, evidently establishes the prosecution case, beyond reasonable doubt, of the accused having given blow with a Drat on the body of PW-2, as a result of which he sustained injuries. Statement of PW-2 stands corroborated by PW-1. According to PW-1, when he asked the accused to collect bushes, accused first attacked him, but he was able to save himself. Thereafter, accused gave a blow to PW-2, as a result of which he sustained injuries, but he was somehow able to save himself. PW-2 bled from the wound and his clothes got soiled with blood. He reported the matter to the police, who conducted investigation and got him examined through the doctors at Jubbal and Shimla. We find the testimonies of these witnesses to be absolutely corroborated by an independent witness Mohan Singh (PW-3), to whom the incident was narrated. We do not find veracity of these witnesses to be, in any manner, shattered, falsified or belied. 15. Investigating Officer (PW-10) recorded disclosure statement (Ex. PD), pursuant to which weapon of offence (Ex. P-1) was recovered. 16. As such, it cannot be said that the trial Court erred in correctly and completely appreciating the testimony of prosecution witnesses. 17. From the material placed on record, it stands established by the prosecution, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence, that accused attempted to commit murder of Udham Lal (PW-2) and Pradeep Kumar (PW-1). 18. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court. The Court fully appreciated the evidence placed on record by the parties. There is no illegality, irregularity, perversity in correct and complete appreciation of the material s o placed on record by the parties. 19. However, we find force in the submission of Mr. Behl, learned counsel for the accused, on the question of quantum of sentence. 20. With profit, we may extract the following passages on the question of sentencing from the Book: Sentencing Law and Practice, authored by C.K. Boyle and M.J. Allen: “A problem which frequently confronts a sentencer is that of establishing the factual basis of the offence on which to assess the appropriate sentence. 20. With profit, we may extract the following passages on the question of sentencing from the Book: Sentencing Law and Practice, authored by C.K. Boyle and M.J. Allen: “A problem which frequently confronts a sentencer is that of establishing the factual basis of the offence on which to assess the appropriate sentence. As the sentence imposed should not be more severe than the offence merits, it is important that the facts of the offence are accurately established before sentence is passed. Where there has been a guilty plea, the factual basis of the offence may not be apparent, or the defendant may have pleaded guilty on the basis of his own view of the offence which may not coincide with that of the prosecution. Even in cases where there has been a full trial and a conviction, the factual basis of the offence may not be clear from the evidence and the jury verdict. For example, a verdict of guilty of manslaughter on an indictment for murder, could be arrived at in one of several ways. If the judge is to pass the appropriate sentence, he must be able to arrive at some conclusion as to the facts of the offence (see, e.g. Wheeler [1967] 1 W.L.R. 1531; Hudson (1979) 1 Cr.App.R.(S.) 130; Campbell [1980] Crim.L.R. 248). Similarly, where an offender is convicted of a strict liability offence, it is important to know whether he acted intentionally, recklessly, negligently or without fault (see Lester (1976) 63 Cr.App.R. 144). A body of case law is gradually building up in relation to how this factual basis may be established and what evidence may be taken into consideration in establishing it.” “Each criminal offence is characterized by typically recurring factual situations of varying degrees of gravity and, accordingly, the severity of the sentence to be imposed must reflect these degrees of wickedness (See Thomas, op.cit.,p33). Ranges of sentence appropriate to each level of gravity have been developed over the years and can be identified from the decisions of the Court of Appeal. The maximum sentence available for a particular offence is reserved for the worst from that offence ( Byrne (1975) 62 Cr.App.R. 159; Smith [1976] Crim.L.R. 468). Ranges of sentence appropriate to each level of gravity have been developed over the years and can be identified from the decisions of the Court of Appeal. The maximum sentence available for a particular offence is reserved for the worst from that offence ( Byrne (1975) 62 Cr.App.R. 159; Smith [1976] Crim.L.R. 468). Using their experience and knowledge of the decisions of other judges and of the Court of Appeal, particularly cases where the court seeks to give guidelines (See, e.g. Mohammed (1974) 60 Cr.App.R.141; Taylor, Simons and Roberts [1977] 1 W.L.R. 612 ; Aramah (1982) 4 Cr.App.R.(S.) 407; Wood [1984] Crim.L.R.305; Clarke (1982) 4 Cr.App.R.(S.) 197), judges must first allocate the offence to the appropriate sentence range. There is a normal bracket of terms of years within which the sentence for an offence is to be assessed. This bracket forms the starting point for determining the appropriate sentence. From this starting point the final sentence will be calculated by taking into account any aggravating factors which lead to a sentence towards the upper end of the bracket. If appropriate, the court will also consider any mitigating factors which may lead to the imposition of a lesser sentence. In some circumstances the court may consider it inappropriate to give a discount for mitigating circumstances in order to achieve some other penal objective such a deterrence, but the sentence must be proportionate to the facts of the case, and generally must not exceed that range for that type of offence.” 21. We find that accused is not a hardened criminal. It is his first offence. The apex Court in Modi Ram v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, (1972) 2 SCC 630 , has laid down certain principles on the issue of sentencing, which read as follows: “4. …………….The accused persons found guilty may be hardened or professional criminals having taken to the life of crime since long, or they may have taken to crime only recently or may have committed the crime under the influence of bad company or again commission of a solitary offence may be due to provocative wrongful action seriously injuring the feelings and sentiments of the accused. Human nature being what it is men are at times moved by the impulse of the moment rather than by rational, cool, calculated estimate of the future good and evil. Human nature being what it is men are at times moved by the impulse of the moment rather than by rational, cool, calculated estimate of the future good and evil. At such moments they are ordinarily inclined to be ready to face any future evil falling short of the inevitable. Keeping in view the broad object of punishment of criminals by Courts in all progressive civilised societies true dictates of justice seem to us to demand that all the attending relevant circumstances should be taken into account for determining the proper and just sentence. The sentence should bring home to the guilty party the consciousness that the offence committed by him was against his own interest as also against the interests of the society of which he happens to be a member. In considering the adequacy of the sentence which should neither be too severe nor to lenient the Court has, therefore, to keep in mind the motive and magnitude of the offence, the circumstances in which it was committed and the age and character (including his antecedents) and station in life of the offender…………………”. 22. Apex Court in Gurmukh Singh v. State of Haryana, (2009) 15 SCC 635 , also laid down the following factors, though not exhaustive, to be kept in mind at the time of granting sentence to the accused: (i) Motive or previous enmity; (ii) Whether the incident had taken place on the spur of the moment; (iii) intention/knowledge of the accused while inflicting the blow or injury; (iv) whether the death ensued instantaneously or the victim died after several days; (v) gravity, dimension and nature of injury; (vi) age and general health condition of the accused; (vii) whether the injury was caused without pre-meditation in a sudden fight; (viii) nature and size of weapon used for inflicting the injury and the force with which the blow was inflicted; (ix) criminal background and adverse history of the accused; (x) whether the injury inflicted was not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death but the death was because of shock; (xi) number of other criminal cases pending against the accused; (xii) incident occurred within the family members or close relations; and (xiii) conduct and behaviour of the accused after the incident. Whether the accused had taken the injured/the deceased to the hospital immediately to ensure that he/she gets proper medical treatment? 23. Whether the accused had taken the injured/the deceased to the hospital immediately to ensure that he/she gets proper medical treatment? 23. In the instant case, we find that accused has no past history of violence or criminal record. It is his first offence. He has already spent nine years in jail. There is nothing adverse qua his conduct either during trial or pendency of the appeal. At the time of commission of offence, convict was a young man of 19 years. He has long way ahead in life and we find that he has shown remorse and repentance. As such he deserves leniency. Accordingly, we reduce his sentence of imprisonment from 10 years to the period already undergone. We also find that accused is a poor person. He had been working as a labourer and as such we also reduce the quantum of fine from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-, which as per directions of the trial Court has to be paid to injured Udham Lal (PW-2). Hence, with modification in the sentence part of judgment of the trial Court, appeal stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any. In case the accused has deposited the fine amount, he be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. In case the amount of fine has not been deposited by the accused, he be released on his depositing the same. Registry is directed to issue release warrants accordingly.