Judgment The present appeal is filed by Accused no.1 on his conviction for an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’, for brevity), and having been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and a fine of Rs. 20,000/-. 2. It was the case of the prosecution that the present appellant arraigned as Accused no.1, along with Shafi, Ashraff, Annu & Amir Jan, Accused no. 2 to 5, respectively, had formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and with a common object to commit the murder of one Syed Ismail, on account of previous enmity, since it was alleged that one Firoz, son of Amir Sab of Mindahalli had taken away a Harijan girl called Savi of Elavaguli village and in this regard Syed Ismail had actively helped Firoz. It was alleged that Accused no.2 to 5 had actively instigated and abetted Accused no.1 to attempt to commit the murder of Syed Ismail. It was alleged that on 23.8.2008 at about 2 PM, near Mindahalli, Malur taluk, while Syed Ismail was on the land of one Makery Sab,-Accused no.1, had, at the instance of Accused nos.2 to 5, attacked Ismail with a dagger and had caused injuries on his head, left jaw, right side of his chest, left forearm, left index finger and his abdomen. This was with an intention to kill Ismail. Though Ismail had survived the attack, as the same could have resulted in his death, if not for timely medical aid, the appellant was accused of having committed offences punishable under Section 307 read with 149 IPC as well as under Section 107 read with 307 and 149 IPC. The case having been registered and later committed to the trial court, on the submission of a final report by the police before the jurisdictional magistrate, the trial court had framed charges to which the accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The Prosecution had then examined 8 witnesses and got marked several documents and material objects. After having recorded the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.PC’, for brevity), and after having heard the parties, the court below had framed the following points for consideration : “1. The Prosecution had then examined 8 witnesses and got marked several documents and material objects. After having recorded the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.PC’, for brevity), and after having heard the parties, the court below had framed the following points for consideration : “1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused No.1 to 5 being the members of unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object to commit murder of CW.1 Syed Ismail due to previous ill-will, accused No.2 to 5 instigated accused No.1 to commit murder of CW.1 and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 107 read with Section 307 of the IPC? 2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 23.8.2008 at about 2.00 PM, near Mindahalli village, Kasaba hobli, Malur taluk, in the garden land of one Mekhrisab, accused No.1 at the instigation of accused No.2 to 5 assaulted CW.1 with dagger below his right knee, on his stomach, right chest, head, left jaw, left forearm and on left index finger with such intention that if by that act you had caused the death of CW.1, you would have been guilty of murder and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 307 read with Section 149 IPC?” Point no.1 was answered in the affirmative and Point no.2 in the negative leading to the conviction and punishment as aforesaid. It is that which is under challenge. Accused no.2 to 5 having been acquitted, the State has not challenged the same. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant seeks to highlight the several discrepancies which would vitiate the case of the prosecution. In that, it is contended that the incident is said to have taken place on 23.8.2008, whereas the statement of the injured victim was recorded on 24.8.2008 at about 12.05 PM, and a case registered at about 1.20 PM, but the spot mahazar is said to have been conducted on 23.8.2008 itself, which is wholly inexplicable. An eyewitness to the alleged incident, PW.2 is shown to have stated that the injured was conscious when he was being taken to hospital from the spot where the incident had occurred and that he was in a position to speak, thereby indicating that the injuries were not of such a serious nature to cause a fatality. An eyewitness to the alleged incident, PW.2 is shown to have stated that the injured was conscious when he was being taken to hospital from the spot where the incident had occurred and that he was in a position to speak, thereby indicating that the injuries were not of such a serious nature to cause a fatality. It is pointed out that according to yet another witness, when he visited the victim at the hospital he was said to be unconscious – the contradictory evidence cannot be reconciled. It is also urged that the several witnesses cited as eyewitnesses had all stated that they had seen the accused and the victim from a distance and by the time they reached the victim on hearing his cries for help, the accused had fled. This would indicate that the witnesses had not actually seen the manner in which the incident had occurred. It is further pointed out that PW.1 had clearly stated that he was unaware of the reason for the attack by the accused thereby indicating that there was no possible motive for the alleged offence and hence could not be claimed to be premeditated. It is also PW.1, who is said to have shouted at the Accused and called him a “boli maganay”. The learned counsel seeks to highlight other lacunae, which according to her, would further dilute the case of the prosecution and seeks the acquittal of the accused no.1. 4. The learned State Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, seeks to justify the judgment of the trial court. 5. From a perusal of the record and the submission of the counsel, it is clear that the entire case of the prosecution devolves on the testimony of PW.1 to PW.4, duly supported by the evidence of the investigating officers, namely, PW.7 and PW.8. The incident involving the elopement of Firoz, the son of Accused no.5 with Savi, a Harijan girl and the matter having reached the police station and later having been compromised, with the complainant playing a major role in helping Firoz in the same, is not disputed. The accused no.1 being seen in the company of the victim at the time of the incident is also not in dispute. The victim having suffered six injuries, all of which were cut and lacerated wounds, is spoken to by the doctor who had treated the victim. The accused no.1 being seen in the company of the victim at the time of the incident is also not in dispute. The victim having suffered six injuries, all of which were cut and lacerated wounds, is spoken to by the doctor who had treated the victim. Of these, an injury over the victim’s right leg exposing bone and muscle, an injury on his left hand between the middle and index finger extending upto the wrist exposing bone and muscle and an injury to the abdomen causing his intestine to emerge – were serious injuries, but whether the same could have proved fatal, if not for timely medical aid, is a debatable question. The discrepancy as to the date on the mahazar was an apparent error. And there is not much significance that can be placed on the same. The several other so-called infirmities would not also absolve the appellant of the actual commission of the act resulting in grievous injuries to the complainant. Hence, there is not much scope for the appellant to claim that no incident had at all occurred. The only aspect on which this court could possible interfere with the findings of the court below is the quantum of punishment which the court below has imposed on the appellant. In that, having regard to the fact that the appellant has a family to provide for, the age of the appellant and the nature of the injuries, if the punishment of imprisonment is substantially reduced and the fine is enhanced, interest of justice would be met. Hence, the punishment of imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 307 is reduced to 3 years from 7 years and the fine amount is enhanced to Rs.40,000/- instead of Rs.20,000/-. The entire amount shall be paid as compensation to the complainant-victim. The appeal is allowed in part and the sentence by the trial court stands modified in terms as above. The bail bond furnished by the appellant stands cancelled.