ORDER This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 07.07.2010 passed by the High Court of Kerala in Criminal Revision Petition No.659 of 2000 dismissing the revision petition filed by the appellant thereby affirming the conviction under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment imposed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Manjeri in Sessions Case No.64/1992 which has been upheld in appeal by the Sessions Judge. 2. Briefly stated case of the prosecution is that on the night of 07.07.1989 at about 09.30 p.m., PW-1-Ismayil Musaliar was on his way to home after closing his book stall situated in Manjeri. PW-2-Muhammad Sherif and PW-3-Aboobacker Siddique were following PW-1 from a distance. When PW-1 reached Chalumkunnumpuram at about 09.30 P.M., the accused came in a jeep from the opposite side. After getting down from the jeep, the accused called PW-1 ‘Usthad’ and started beating him forcefully. Thereafter, accused stabbed PW-1 with a knife on his chest. The second stab was on the muscle of right arm and the third stab was intended for the right eye but was inflicted above the right eye. The next stab was on the left cheek. On raising alarm, PW-2 and PW-3, who were coming behind PW-1 reached the spot and on seeing PW-2 and PW-3, accused escaped in the Jeep in which he came. PW-1 sustained nine injuries out of which one was fatal. He was taken to District Hospital Manjeri at 10.05 p.m. where the statement of PW-1 was recorded, based on which, the first information report was lodged on the next day at 11.30 a.m. hence there was no delay in lodging the first information report. The accused was arrested on 23.07.1989. On the basis of the confessional statement, a bloodstained shirt and mundu was recovered from him. A test identification parade (TIP) was conducted on 08.02.1990 by the Judicial Magistrate in which the accused was identified by PW-1 to PW-4. Upon completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed against the accused under Section 307 IPC. 3. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses (PW-1 to PW-12) and marked Exs.P1 to P11 as well as MOs 1 and 2. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied the allegations levelled against him and pleaded innocence. 3. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses (PW-1 to PW-12) and marked Exs.P1 to P11 as well as MOs 1 and 2. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied the allegations levelled against him and pleaded innocence. Upon consideration of evidence adduced, the trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution had been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and held the accused guilty of attempting to commit the murder of PW-1. The accused was convicted under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment of seven years. Appeal preferred before the Sessions Judge came to be dismissed by the judgment dated 23.05.2002. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his appeal by the Sessions Judge, appellant filed the revision petition before the High Court which also came to be dismissed by the impugned judgment. 4. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties. We have gone through the judgment of the trial court, lower appellate court as also the impugned judgment of the High Court and the material placed on record. 5. PW-1 admitted that he is the Chief Editor of “Sunni Voice”, the official publication of A.P. Group. PW-1 is a Professor in Arabic College called “Markkas Sakkafath Sunniya College” of which A.P. Aboobacker Musaliar is the Secretary. PW-1 is also the Khasi of the Jumayath Mosque in Arimbra. According to PW-1, there were civil litigations between PW-1 and the opposite group regarding “Ooruvilakku”. PW-1 deposed that the accused married the niece of C.P. Muhammad Moulavi, who belongs to the opposite group of PW-1. He has also stated that for the past many years the said C.P. Muhammad Moulvi who is the father-in-law of the accused is on inimical terms with PW-1. The motive for committing the crime was the difference of opinion on religious grounds. PW-1 is a believer of ‘Sunni faction’ and the accused is the follower of ‘Shamsiyya Thariquath’. The assault was not a sudden but planned and premeditated; the appellant attacked PW-1 due to enmity. Weapon used and the signs of injuries and the manner of attack clearly bring home the intention of the appellant in committing the offence. 6. Test Identification Parade was held on 08.02.1990 nearly six months after the occurrence and there was delay in conducting the test identification parade. Weapon used and the signs of injuries and the manner of attack clearly bring home the intention of the appellant in committing the offence. 6. Test Identification Parade was held on 08.02.1990 nearly six months after the occurrence and there was delay in conducting the test identification parade. The courts below did not place reliance upon the evidence of test identification of the accused by PW-1 in TIP as delay in holding the TIP was not properly explained by the prosecution. PW-1, being an injured witness, has clearly identified the appellant-accused. The courts below have rightly placed reliance upon evidence of PW-1 and other evidence adduced by the prosecution to identify the accused. 7. Upon consideration of evidence of PW-1, who is an injured witness and considering the nature of injuries sustained by him as well as the nature of weapon used in crime, the courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the appellant had caused injuries to PW-1 with knife several times with intention to commit his murder. The concurrent finding of fact recorded by the courts below is based upon appreciation of evidence and in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. 8. In so far as sentence awarded to the appellant is concerned, it was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that he is now aged about 50 years and is the sole breadwinner of the family. It was also submitted that the occurrence was of the year 1989 and undergoing seven years rigorous imprisonment at this distant point of time would be too harsh. Having regard to the fact that the occurrence was of the year 1989 and considering the age of the appellant and in the facts and circumstances, we reduce the sentence of imprisonment of seven years to three years. 9. The appeal is partly allowed. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to undergo remaining period of sentence.