JUDGMENT : S.K. Sahoo, J. - The petitioner Lopan Majhi faced trial in the Court of learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Deogarh in S.T. Case No.295/7 of 1998-99 for commission of offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code on the accusation that on 15.03.1998 at about 9.30 a.m., he assaulted Bhaktabandhu Behera (P.W.2) at village Tinkbir by means of a knife with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstance that if by that act he had caused the death of P.W.2, he would have been guilty of murder. The learned Trial Court found the petitioner guilty under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (rupees five hundred), in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The petitioner preferred an appeal in the Court of Session and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Deogarh in Criminal Appeal No.50/5 of 1999-2000 upheld the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court and dismissed the criminal appeal, hence the revision. 2. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report lodged by Dileswar Behera (P.W.1) before the Officer in charge, Reamal Police Station on 15.03.1998 is that on that day at about 9.30 a.m. while P.W.2 Bhaktabandhu Behera was sitting in the tiffin shop of P.W.3 Prafulla Kumar Das, at that time due to previous rivalry, the petitioner came there with a knife and assaulted P.W.2 on both the hands and head as a result of which the injured sustained bleeding injuries and was shifted to Chhatabar P.H.C. for treatment. It is further stated in the First Information Report that the co-villagers Prafulla Kumar Das, Tarani Sahu, Lochan Behera, Choudhury Majhi, Gurucharan Majhi and Dillip Kumar Behera were present at the spot and they had seen the occurrence. On the basis of such First Information Report, Reamal P.S. Case No. 16 dated 15.03.1998 was registered under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and the case was entrusted to A.S.I. of Police, Lalu Patel (P.W.5) for investigation. The investigating officer during course of investigation examined the informant and other witnesses. Since the injured Bhaktabandhu Behera (P.W.2) was in the hospital, the investigating officer went to the hospital at Chhatabar and examined him and seized the blood stained shirt of the injured as per seizure list Ext.3/1. The investigating officer during course of investigation examined the informant and other witnesses. Since the injured Bhaktabandhu Behera (P.W.2) was in the hospital, the investigating officer went to the hospital at Chhatabar and examined him and seized the blood stained shirt of the injured as per seizure list Ext.3/1. He also visited the spot and prepared a spot map and made requisition to the Medical Officer, Chhatabar P.H.C. to submit medical examination report and he also seized blood stained earth from the spot vide seizure list Ext.2 and received the medical report from the Medical Officer of Chhatabar P.H.C., arrested the petitioner on 20.03.1998 and forwarded him to Court and on completion of investigation, he submitted charge sheet on 03.05.1998 under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. After submission of charge sheet, the case was committed to the Court of Session after observing due committal procedure and it was transferred to the Court of Asst. Sessions Judge, Deogarh for trial where the learned Trial Court framed the charge as aforesaid. Since the petitioner refuted the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the sessions trial procedure was resorted to prosecute him and establish his guilt. 4. During course of trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined five witnesses. P.W.1 Dileswar Behera is the informant in the case and he happens is to be the brother of the injured. He proved the F.I.R. (Ext.1). P.W.2 Bhaktabandhu Behera is the injured in the case and he stated as to how he sustained injuries on various parts of his body due to assault by the petitioner with a knife. P.W.3 Prafulla Kumar Das did not support the prosecution case for which he was declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.4 Dr. Purna Chandra Pradhan was the Medical Officer, Chhatabar P.H.C. who examined the injured (P.W.2) on police requisites on 15.03.1998 and noticed as many as six injuries on different parts of the body and opined that the injuries were simple in nature and proved the injury report Ext.4. P.W.5 Lalu Patel was the A.S.I. of Police of Reamal Police Station who is the investigating officer of the case. The prosecution exhibited five documents. Ext.1 is the F.I.R., Ext.2 is the seizure list, Ext.3/1 is another seizure list, Ext.4 is the injury report and Ext.5 is the seizure list. P.W.5 Lalu Patel was the A.S.I. of Police of Reamal Police Station who is the investigating officer of the case. The prosecution exhibited five documents. Ext.1 is the F.I.R., Ext.2 is the seizure list, Ext.3/1 is another seizure list, Ext.4 is the injury report and Ext.5 is the seizure list. The prosecution proved the blood stained shirt of the injured as M.O.I. 5. The defence plea of the petitioner was one of the denial and it was pleaded that the injured (P.W.2) assaulted the father of the petitioner on his head with a stone for which a case was instituted and for that reason, this false case has been foisted against the injured. No witness was examined on behalf of the defence nor has any document been proved. 6. Mr. Anadi Charan Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the impugned judgments contended that the independent witnesses to the occurrence have not been examined and P.W.1 and P.W.2 are highly interested witnesses and therefore, the learned Courts below should not have placed implicit reliance on their testimony to convict the petitioner. The learned counsel further contended that there was previous dispute between the parties for which the case has been foisted. He further submitted that the occurrence in question took place in the year 1998 and in the meantime more than 18 years have already passed and the petitioner was 20 years at the time of occurrence and therefore, in case this Court upholds the order of conviction, at this stage, it would not be proper in sending back the petitioner to custody again and therefore, the sentence should be reduced to period already undergone. Mr. Tusar Kumar Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State on the other hand contended that the injured is the best witness to depose about the occurrence and in the present case, the statement of the injured not only gets corroboration from the statement of the informant (P.W.1) but also from the medical evidence. Learned counsel further contended that non-examination of some of the independent witnesses cannot be a factor to disbelieve the prosecution case. Learned counsel further contended that non-examination of some of the independent witnesses cannot be a factor to disbelieve the prosecution case. He further contended that the intention for commission of the crime is to be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case and the manner in which the petitioner assaulted P.W.2 by means of a knife on different parts of the body particularly on the head region even after he fell down on the ground indicates that the act comes squarely within the purview of section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submitted that the seizure of the blood stained shirt of the injured lends corroboration to the prosecution case and therefore, in view of the concurrent findings of facts by the Courts below, this Court should not exercise the revisional jurisdiction to interfere with such findings. 7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and looking at the findings of the learned Trial Court, it appears that the Trial Court held that the evidence of P.W.3 is not helpful for the prosecution. It is further held that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 were not demolished in the cross-examination and nothing substantial has been brought out to disbelieve their evidence. It is further held by the learned Trial Court that the evidence of the doctor coincides with the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 and the seizure of blood stained shirt (which was produced in Court and marked as M.O.I) and the seizure of knife added strength to the prosecution case. The learned Trial Court further held that the successive blows given by the petitioner by means of knife on the head of the injured clearly indicate that the petitioner had intention to cause death of P.W.2. The learned Trial Court further held that though the petitioner had taken a plea that due to enmity, the case has been filed falsely but neither P.W.1 nor P.W.2 admitted that there was any incident of throwing stone for which enmity developed. The learned Appellate Court also discussed the evidence on record and held that the evidence of P.W.4, the Medical Officer coupled with the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 lead to an irresistible conclusion that the injuries were caused to P.W.1 by means of knife at and around the time of occurrence. The learned Appellate Court also discussed the evidence on record and held that the evidence of P.W.4, the Medical Officer coupled with the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 lead to an irresistible conclusion that the injuries were caused to P.W.1 by means of knife at and around the time of occurrence. It was further held that no doubt the injuries caused are simple in nature but it cannot be said that the petitioner wanted to cause simple cut injuries with the knife and when it is crystal clear that the petitioner inflicted successive blows with the knife even after the injured fell down from the bench, all the circumstances taken together indicate that the petitioner attempted the cause death of the injured but due to presence of other witnesses and their interference, the petitioner could not succeed in his mission and accordingly, the learned Appellate Court upheld the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court. 8. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.2, who is the injured in the case, it appears that he has specifically stated that on 15.03.1990 at about 9.30 a.m. while he was sitting on a bench inside the hotel of P.W.3 after taking tiffin, the petitioner entered inside the hotel and asked for tiffin and assaulted him by means of a knife on the back side of his head causing bleeding injury and thereafter, the petitioner stabbed at two to three places on his head by the same knife. The petitioner also stabbed on his forehead, below the right eye on the face and right arm just nearer to the right shoulder joint and due to stabbing by the knife, he sustained severe bleeding injury and his shirt and lungi were blood stained and he became senseless and regained his sense at Chhatrabar P.H.C. where he was treated by the doctor for his injuries. He further stated that the blood stained shirt was seized by the police during investigation of the case. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination so as to discard the evidence of P.W.2. Law is well settled that an injured person is the best witness to say about the cause of his injuries unless the injuries are shown to be self inflicted. His presence at the spot cannot be disbelieved and he would not easily substitute a wrong person in place of his real assailant. Law is well settled that an injured person is the best witness to say about the cause of his injuries unless the injuries are shown to be self inflicted. His presence at the spot cannot be disbelieved and he would not easily substitute a wrong person in place of his real assailant. The evidence of an injured cannot be rejected on the ground that he is an interested witness. Even if the prosecution proves that there was dispute between the parties but that cannot also be a ground to discard the evidence of the injured, if it is otherwise found to be reliable, cogent and trustworthy inasmuch as enmity is a double edged weapon. Enmity can be a ground to falsely institute a case against a person but at the same time it can also be a motive for commission of the crime. Therefore, on the mere plea of false implication taken by the defence without any documentary and oral evidence to that effect, the prosecution case cannot be disbelieved. In the case in hand, as a matter of fact, the evidence of the injured (P.W.2) gets corroboration from the evidence of P.W.1 Dileswar Behera who is none else than the brother of P.W.2 and the informant in the case. He has specifically stated that the petitioner stabbed P.W.2 by means of a knife on his head, left shoulder, right hand and below the eye on his face. He further stated that the petitioner caused seven knife injuries on P.W.2 for which the shirt of P.W.2 was stained with blood. The doctor (P.W.4) who examined P.W.2 on police requisition on 15.03.1998 at Chhatabar P.H.C. noticed the following injuries:- i. Incised injury 2" x ?" x ?" over right supra orbital region; ii. Incised injury 2" x ?" x ?" over right upper eye lid; iii. Stab wound 2" x ?" x 4" on right arm; iv. Incised wound ?" x ?" over occipital region of the head; v. Incised wound 2" x ?" x ?" over occipital region of the head; vi. Abrasion of size 4" x right cheek and right palm and wrist. P.W 4 opined all the injuries to be simple in nature and might have been caused by sharp cutting weapon. Thus, the statements of the injured (P.W.2) and informant (P.W.1) get corroboration from the medical evidence. Abrasion of size 4" x right cheek and right palm and wrist. P.W 4 opined all the injuries to be simple in nature and might have been caused by sharp cutting weapon. Thus, the statements of the injured (P.W.2) and informant (P.W.1) get corroboration from the medical evidence. The seizure of blood stained shirt of the injured (P.W.2) also lends corroboration to the evidence of the injured. Therefore, in view of the material available on record particularly the oral evidence as well as the medical evidence, it can be said that the prosecution has successfully proved that the injured (P.W.2) sustained injuries due to the assault by the petitioner with a knife. On the question as to whether the ingredients of the offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is attracted or not, in case of State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil reported in 1983 Criminal Law Journal 331, it is held that to justify a conviction under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances, and may even, in some cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds. The section makes a distinction between an act of the accused and its result, if any. Such an act may not be attended by any result so far as the person assaulted is concerned, but still there may be cases in which the culprit would be liable under this section. It is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim of the assault should be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the person assaulted. What the Court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in this section. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. The injured (P.W.2) has sustained four incised wounds of different sizes on the head. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. The injured (P.W.2) has sustained four incised wounds of different sizes on the head. His evidence clearly indicates that he was first assaulted on the backside of his head and when he fell down from the bench, the petitioner stabbed him by the knife on two to three places on his head and he also stabbed on his forehead, below the right eye on the face, right arm and right shoulder joint. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the injuries are simple in nature, the offence may at best be one under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be accepted. On careful analysis of the materials available on record, the nature of weapon used, the manner in which the petitioner assaulted the injured on the vital parts of the body, I am of the view that both the Courts below have rightly held the petitioner guilty under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code stands confirmed. Adverting to the sentence part, it appears that the age of the petitioner at the time of incident was only 18 years. In view of the passage of the time in the meantime and absence of any criminal antecedent against the petitioner, I am of the view that while upholding the conviction of the petitioner under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of three years which was imposed by the learned Trial Court and confirmed by the learned Appellate Court should be reduced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and the fine amount of Rs. 500/- (rupees five hundred) should be enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand), in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month more. In case the fine amount is realized, the same should be paid to the victim (P.W.2). With the aforesaid modification in the order of sentence, the Criminal Revision stands dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed