JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant - State Ms. C.M. Shah and learned Advocate for the opponent/respondent Ms. Sadhana Sagar. 2. By way of this Appeal, the State has felt aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 29.04.2013 of the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mahesana in Sessions Case No. 101/2011 whereby the respondent herein - original accused was convicted and sentenced as under:- Under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for 21 months Under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for 21 months. Under Section 333 of the Indian Penal Code Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for 21 months. Under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act Simple imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for 7 days. However, he was acquitted of the charge for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused was given the benefit of set off for the period undergone and all the sentences were to run concurrently. The State has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1132/2013 for enhancement of sentence only, whereas Criminal Appeal No. 660/2014 has been preferred by the respondent accused against his sentence and conviction as stated above. 3. The case in brief and the incident which is alleged to have occurred on 02.06.2011 is as under:- 3.1. On the said day, complainant Jitendrakumar Karshanbhai Raval was discharging his duty as an Armed driver with Kadi Police Station alongwith 2nd Mobile Incharge unarmed ASI Thakor Amratji Velaji. At that time, one Police Officer of Kadi Police Station viz., Bhikhabharthi Laxmanbharthi informed the 2nd Mobile Incharge ASI Amratji Velaji that one Patel Sureshbhai Kacharabhai, resident of Village Adundara, Taluka Kadi had given a telephonic information that his brother Patel Vishnubhai Kacharabhai was going to make an assault with a sword on him and his wife and hence, they had taken refuge in some other person's house to save their lives. In pursuance to the said information being received, the PSO gave the information to Mobile Incharge - Amratji; hence, Amratji and others went to the said village and inquired about the location. Since the exact location could not be found, Amratji contacted Sureshbhai, wherein it was revealed that Sureshbhai was in his own house. Hence, Amratji proceeded towards Sureshbhai's house. Amratji informed Sureshbhai that the police van was standing in front of his house and therefore, he asked Sureshbhai to come at this place. 3.2. At about 6.00 p.m., the complainant heard screams and saw that Amratji was rushing towards them with fear and screams that he would be killed, and that he should be taken to the hospital as his left hand was cut from the wrist. The complainant also saw the accused herein running behind Amratji armed with a sword. However, on seeing the police, it is alleged that the accused ran away from the spot. It is said that uniform of ASI Amratji was full of blood stains, his left hand was cut from the wrist, blood was oozing out from his head and right ear and there were injury marks even on the back. As the condition of ASI Amratji was very serious, with the help of other residents, he was taken to the Government Hospital, Kadi for treatment. While being taken to the hospital, Amratji informed that the respondent accused had made a assault upon him with a sword to kill him and thereby, allegedly committed the above cited offences. 3.3. Accordingly, offence being I-C.R. No. 115/2011 came to be registered with Kadi Police Station under the above cited Sections. Thereafter, the police started investigation. After completion of investigation, the chargesheet was filed against the accused for the above cited offence and as the case was triable by Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court at Mahesana where it was numbered as Sessions Case No. 101/2011. On committal, the case was placed for trial before the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mahesana who had initially framed charge against the respondents-accused vide Exh. 3 for the alleged offences. The charge was read over and explained to him. Statement of the respondent-accused came to be recorded vide Exhibit 4, wherein the respondent-accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 3.4. 3 for the alleged offences. The charge was read over and explained to him. Statement of the respondent-accused came to be recorded vide Exhibit 4, wherein the respondent-accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 3.4. At the time of the trial, the prosecution examined the following witnesses:- Particulars Exhibit PW1 Complainant jitendrakumar karshanbhai Raval 6 PW2 Injured Witness Amratji Vealji Thakore 8 PW3 Patel Sureshbhai Kachradas 9 PW4 Ashaben Sureshbhai Patel 11 PW5 Shardaben Kachrabhai Patel 12 PW6 Patel Hargovanbhai Kachradas 13 PW7 Rasikbhai Jayantibhai Patel 14 PW8 Patel Vishnubhai Kachardas Mohandas 15 PW9 Police Officer Chetankumar Natvarlal Barot 16 PW10 Thakore Kanusinh Amratsinh 17 PW11 Rasulbhai Hamirbhai Chauhan (Panch ata the scene of offence) 18 PW12 Chauhan Salimbhai Kasambhai 22 PW13 Faridkhan Kalekhan Jam 25 PW14 Ganibhai Allahrakha Mansuri 28 PW15 Girishkumar Mafatlal Parmar 29 PW16 Patel Maheshkumar Ramabhai 31 PW17 Kanuji Ranchodji Thakore 32 PW18 Raval Dhyabhai Mangalbhai 34 PW19 Mansuri Mohammesbhai Husenbhai 36 PW20 Patel Jayantibhai Madhavlal 38 PW21 Dr. Bhaktibhai Varvabhai Prajapati (Medical Officer, CHC, Kadi) 39 PW22 Dr. Bhaktibhai Varvabhai Prajapati (Medical Officer, CHC, Kadi) 39 PW22 Dr. Bijal Vinaykant Parikh (Medical Officer, Sterling Hospital, Ahmedabad) 50 PW23 Bhikhabharthi Laxanbharthi (PSO, Kadi Police Station) 52 PW24 Aleshkumar Vadilal Rajgor (Investigating Officer – PI) 57 PW25 Bhardhai Shamsherbhai 66 PW26 Yasinkhan Mojamkha Pathan 68 PW27 Parmar Kishorbhai Fakirbhai 69 prosecution also relied upon various documentary evidence, some of them are:- Particulars Exhibit Complaint 7 Muddamaml Slip 19 Panchnama of scene of offence 20 Panchnama of the second Mobile of Kadi 23 Panchnama of the seizure of clothes of ASI Amrutji 27 Panchnama of the position of the body of the accused and of the seizure of muddamal 30 Panchnama under Section 27 33 Panchnama of the identification parade of the accused 35 Medical Certificate of CHC, Kadi in respect of Amratji Velaji Thakore 40 Police Yadi 41 Medical Certificate of CHC, Kadi in respect of Shardaben Kachrabhai Patel 42 Case Papers of Kadi Hospital 43 Medical Certificate of CHC, Kadi in respect of Yash Sureshbhai Patel 44 Case Papers 45, 47, 48 Medical Certificate of CHC, Kadi in respect of Ashaben Sureshbhai Patel 46 Medical Certificate of Sterling Hospital, Ahmedabad in respect of Amrutji velaji 51 Telephone Wardhi of the complaint 54 Coppy of the Station Diary 55 Depute Order 56 FSL Report of the Inquest Van, Mehsana 60 Information of Vastrapur Police Station 61 Copy of the I-Card of the accused 62 Panchanama carried out at the vehest of the accused and done at Narmada Canal 70 Report given by the Fire Brigade Officer 72 Fsl Report 73 Report regarding addition of Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code 76 3.5. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mahesana passed the order as above. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. C.M. Shah has submitted that the State has desired to prefer this Appeal for enhancement of sentence passed by the learned Judge. It is submitted that the learned Judge has not given any particular reason for imposing lesser sentence upon the accused. It is further submitted that the learned Judge ought to have appreciated the oral evidence of the injured viz. It is submitted that the learned Judge has not given any particular reason for imposing lesser sentence upon the accused. It is further submitted that the learned Judge ought to have appreciated the oral evidence of the injured viz. Amratji Velaji Thakore, who has categorically deposed in his testimony that on the day of the incident, the respondent accused had come armed with a sword, had assaulted him and caused severe injuries on the vital parts of the body only with a view to kill him and hence, he called the police and thus escaped from near death. The said aspect is corroborated by way of oral as well as documentary evidence on record. The evidence of the medical officer also states that the injuries received on the body of the victim could only be possible by way of the muddamal sword; the said sword was recovered from the accused and seized under the panchnama. The FSL report also stated that the muddamal sword had blood stains of the victim. Thus, it is submitted that the learned Judge ought to have appreciated the fact that the respondent had given the sword blow on the injured witness on the vital part of the body with an intention to kill the victim. It is also submitted that the police personnel were also witness to the alleged incident, who were present at the place of offence pursuant to the telephonic information and they had also seen the respondent accused running behind the injured witness with a sword and have deposed about the same in their testimonies. In view of the above, it is submitted that this is a fit case which requires the interference of this Court and the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mahesana requires to be upturned. 5. Per contra, learned Advocate for the accused Ms. Sadhana Sagar has submitted that the present case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence; though Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is alleged against the accused, there is no witness who supports the charge of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted that the learned Judge ought to have appreciated that the prosecution has failed to prove the place of recovery and discovery panchnama. Considering the above, it is submitted that the sentence be reduced and the respondent accused be set at liberty forthwith. 6. It is further submitted that the learned Judge ought to have appreciated that the prosecution has failed to prove the place of recovery and discovery panchnama. Considering the above, it is submitted that the sentence be reduced and the respondent accused be set at liberty forthwith. 6. We have heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the records of the case. At this stage, it is relevant to reproduce Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code which reads as under:- "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." 6.1. It is also necessary to reproduce relevant part of the Medical Report furnished by the Doctor as to the injury sustained by the victim, which reads as under:- "(1) I.W. Size 5 x 3 x 2.5 bone deep on rt side of forehead. Bleeding ... (2) Incised cut on rt ear external ear 2.5 c.m. x 3 c.m. Whole through & thru and ... (3) I/W 8 cm long x 1.5 c.m. x bone deep in middle of frontal region of head. (4) CLW size of 2 x 4 x 4 c.m. right thigh (5) Fist fore-arm cut from the wrist. Bone, muscle, vessels, nerves cut. Open wound size 6 x 3 c.m. (6) I/W size 5 x 2 c.m. and 3 x 1.5 c.m. on ... aspect." 6.2. It appears that it was the accused who had caused the injuries on the complainant. The evidence of the complainant itself goes to show that the injuries were effected on the vital parts of the body. It was further stated by the complainant in his oral evidence that had he not protected himself from the repeated blows of the sword inflicted by the accused by using his hand, his neck would have been cut and this would have turned fatal for the complainant. There are other witnesses also who have supported the case of the prosecution. 7. Hence, both the Appeals are partly allowed. There are other witnesses also who have supported the case of the prosecution. 7. Hence, both the Appeals are partly allowed. The conviction of the respondent accused qua each of the offences stands confirmed and incase of non-payment of fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- qua each of the offences, the sentence will be 12 months. The judgment and order dated 29.04.2013 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mahesana in Sessions Case No. 101/2011 stands modified to the above extent. Bail and bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.