JUDGMENT : K.J. Thaker, J. By way of this Appeal, the original accused has felt aggrieved by the judgment and sentence dated 20.02.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad City in Sessions Case No. 68/1993 whereby the accused was awarded the following punishment : Under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code Rigorous imprisonment of four years and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default, rigorous imprisonment for one month. Under Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act No sentence. 2. The short facts of the prosecution case and the incident which is alleged to have occurred on 20.05.1992 are as under :- On the said day at about 12.15 pm, the appellant - accused is alleged to have given knife blows to Yasin Noor Mohammed Shaikh on a public road. The friends of Yasin brought the injured man to his house. Yasin was bleeding profusely, he had sustained injuries on the chest, on the waist as well as on the left hand. Thereafter, the injured was taken to the Hospital. It was told by Yasin that on the previous day, a scuffle took place with the accused and therefore, the incident had taken place. A complaint was lodged before the Gomtipur Police Station. An offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act was registered against the present accused. The P.I. prepared the Panchnama of the scene of the offence, recorded the statement of the concerned witnesses, got the blood stained clothes of the injured and also prepared panchnama of the clothes of the accused. The muddamal knife was sent to the FSL. The certificate of the injured was received from the hospital and since there was sufficient evidence against the accused, a charge sheet was filed against him in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 02.09.1992. Since the offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 10 committed the case to the Court of Sessions. 3. Since the offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 10 committed the case to the Court of Sessions. 3. To prove the case against the present accused, the prosecution has examined several the witnesses, and the prosecution also relied on several documentary evidence which are :- Particulars Exhibit Muddamal List 4 PW No. 1 - Noormohammedbhai Iba 13 PW No. 2 - Yasinbhai Noormohammedbhai 15 PW No. 3 - Mohammed Rafik Mohammed Hussain 16 PW No.4 - Chaturbhai Mulabhai 17 PW No. 5 - Mohammedshafi Samiullah 19 PW No. 6 - Iqbalbhai Safdarkhan 20 PW No. 7 - Mohammedali Sabbirhussain Shaikh 21 PW No. 8 - Doctor Sanjay Rajendrabhai 23 PW No. 9 - Chandansingh 25 Hadmatsingh Chauhan Mohammedali Shabbir Hussain 32 Ishratali alias Jamaalbhai Nasuruddin 34 Annexure 6/13 Report of the FSL 11 Annexure 6/14 Map of the scene of the offence 12 4. At this stage, it is relevant to reproduce Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code 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." 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State Ms. Monali H. Bhatt has taken this Court through the entire evidence. The findings of facts as recorded by the Court is that the accused was granted bail by this Court as an urgent Note was filed on 03.03.1997. He was enlarged on bail vide order dated 04.03.1997. Thereafter the matter did not proceed further for whatever reasons best known. Having perused the entire record, more particularly Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the judgment of the learned Trial Judge, the finding is based on the sound interpretation of law. Looking to the totality of the circumstances and the medical evidence also weighs against the accused. Hence, it is submitted that the accused has been convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. Looking to the totality of the circumstances and the medical evidence also weighs against the accused. Hence, it is submitted that the accused has been convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. At this stage, it is necessary to reproduce Paragraph 16 of the judgment and order of the learned Trial Judge which reads as under :- 16. If we weigh the evidence of the case, prosecution comes with a story that the victim Yasin was chased by the accused with a knife and he gave him knife blows. In support of this prosecution story, there is a testimony of the victim Yasin himself, the eye witness Mohammed Rafiq exh. 16, the complainant Noor Mohammed who was apprised of the incident immediately after the incident, the complaint which was lodged in the hospital soon after the victim was admitted in the hospital and injury certificate and the medical evidence. It is not in dispute that the accused and the victim Yasin are known to each other. It is not in dispute that Yasin was serving in the shop owned by the brother of the accused and he discontinued the hob. It is not in dispute that the relation between the accused and the victim did not continue to be as healthy as they were in the past, but on the contrary, the relations were strained. According to the accused, the reason was the dishonesty of the victim Yasin as he was mismanaging the articles in the shop, whereas, according to the victim, the accused was of easy virtues and hence, he discontinued the relation with him. But the enmity between the two does emerge from the evidence and the enmity is a double edged weapon. It can be said that the victim has a reason to implicate the accused out of enmity. It can also be said that the accused had a reason to attack the victim on account of the enmity and when the story of the prosecution is supported by reliable, trust worthy and cogent evidences of the victim, eye witness, medical evidence and the complainant, a mere narration of the story that because the victim sat on the cot of some girl, the crowd attacked and injured Yasin may be taken as a cock and bull story without having any sort of base whatsoever. Thus, on the basis of the evidence adduced on the record, I am of the view that the evidence by the prosecution is cogent, convincing, reliable and trust worthy enough to fasten the accused unmistakeably with the guilt. It is abundantly proved that the injuries were caused to victim Yasin by the accused by knife. The injuries have been caused in the middle of 7th and 8th rib and in the left armpit. Dr. Sanjivbhai Rajendrabhai Dalal has stated in his deposition exh. 23, that these injuries were of grievous nature and were possible of causing death. Obviously, therefore, it can very well be believed that the intention of the accused was to cause the death of the victim. I, therefore, hold that the prosecution has proved that on 20.5.92 at about 12.15 am at Pujari's chawal in Gomtipur, Ahmedabad, the accused gave knife blows to victim Yasin with an intention to cause his murder. It also proves that he was armed with deadly weapon like knife and thereby he has violated the notification of police commissioner, the copy of which is produced in this case at exh. 8. I, therefore, hold the accused guilty and decide the points accordingly. Hence, I pass the following order. ORDER The accused is convicted for the offence under section 307 of I.P.C. and under section 135(1) of B.P. Act. He requires to be heard on the point of sentence under section 235(2) of Cr.P.C." 7. Looking to the records of the case and submissions canvassed, however, considering the fact that 22 years have elapsed from the date of incident and at the time of incident, the accused was a very young juvenile who had just completed 18 years of age, the Court has decided to show mercy by passing the following order :- The conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is upheld. However, the punishment and rigorous imprisonment of four years is substituted by the period undergone by the accused. However, the fine is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only), out of which Rs.8,000/- should be paid to the original complainant who had sustained the injuries and Rs.2,000/- should go the State. However, if the accused does not pay the amount under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the sentence/s shall revive, i.e. four years of rigorous imprisonment. 8. However, if the accused does not pay the amount under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the sentence/s shall revive, i.e. four years of rigorous imprisonment. 8. The judgment and order dated 20.02.1997 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Abad City in Sessions Case No. 68/1993 stands modified to the above extent. 9. In view of the above, this Criminal Appeal stands partly allowed. Appeal partly allowed.