JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is preferred as against the judgment passed in S.C.No.179 of 2010 dated 28.12.2010, on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Thirupathur, Vellore district, thereby convicting the appellant under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that P.W.2 was residing at Vellore with his wife P.W.1 and his mother-in-law P.W.6. While so, his brother-in-law died in the house belongs to the accused, when he was slept over in the opened house. When P.Ws.1 and 2 visited P.W.6 house to attend the funereal formalities, the accused scolded with filthy language and demanded a sum of Rs.3,000/- to white wash to his house. P.W.2 agreed to white wash to the house, but the accused did not agree for the same and demanded a sum of Rs.3,000/-. In regard to the issue, on 03.02.2009 at about 6.45 p.m., the accused demanded money from P.W.2, when he refused to give the same, the accused with an intention to kill P.W.2, attacked with knife on his neck, head and hand. P.W.2 was not in position to speak and admitted at the hospital. P.W.7, the Doctor, treated P.W.2 and issued wound certificate Ex.P.6, certifying that P.W.2 sustained grievous injury. On information from the hospital, P.W.10 visited there and recorded statement of P.W.1 and registered the case in Crime No. 301 of 2009 for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. P.W.11, the Investigating Officer investigated the case and filed charge sheet punishable under Section 307 of IPC against the accused. On committal of the case charges were framed under Section 307 of IPC and the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined P.W.1 to P.W.11 and placed relevant documents in Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 and produced material objected in M.O.1. During his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances appeared against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused did not choose to lead any defence witness. The defence of the accused was one of the total denial and that of false implication. During his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances appeared against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused did not choose to lead any defence witness. The defence of the accused was one of the total denial and that of false implication. After hearing of both sides and on assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Vellore by the judgment under this appeal held that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts and found the guilt of the appellant for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced him as stated above. 4. The learned counsel appearing for appellant contended that the impugned conviction is highly perversive and illegal, since the trial Court convicted the appellant on highly interested and motivated evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and no independent witness was examined. Further he would contend that there is a delay in lodging the complaint and it is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Ex.P.1, the complaint is non est in the eye of law, since earlier to this complaint, P.W.1 lodged a complaint before the respondent along with some politicians. Thereafter, the earlier complaint was suppressed by the prosecution and it vitiates the entire case. 5. Further the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that P.W.7, the Doctor, who treated the victim deposed that there was no fracture as per the Accident Register Ex.P.6. Further without any fracture, he certified that the injuries sustained by the victim P.W.2 are grievous in nature. Further would contend that P.W.10, who recorded the statement from P.W.1, deposed that P.W.2 was not in a position to speak, as such he recorded the statement from P.W.1 and registered a case. Whereas, P.W.2 deposed that he had given a statement to the Police in the hospital. Therefore, the First Information Report itself not supported the case of the prosecution. Further submitted that the appellant and P.W.2 are strangers and they had no previous enmity, as such the appellant never had intention to kill P.W.2. Hence, there is no acceptable evidence to establish the offence committed by the appellant under Section 307 of IPC and the order of sentence passed by the Court below has to be hardened and excessive, as such prayed to set aside the conviction and sentence. 6. Hence, there is no acceptable evidence to establish the offence committed by the appellant under Section 307 of IPC and the order of sentence passed by the Court below has to be hardened and excessive, as such prayed to set aside the conviction and sentence. 6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/Police to justify the judgment under this appeal contended that the judgment does not suffer from perversity or illegality warranting interference from this Court. She would further contended that the evidence and records are clearly established that P.W.2 sustained grievous hurt as a result of assault committed by the accused with knife and P.W.2 being the injured, his evidence has been rightly accepted by the Court below and the evidence recorded by the trial Court are sound and reasonable records. Therefore, there is absolutely no ground to interfere with the judgment in this present appeal. Hence she sought for dismissal of the appeal. 7. Heard the arguments of Mr.M.G.Udhayashankar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms.M.Prabhavathi Ganeshram, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/ Police and perused the records placed before this Court. 8. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on both sides, the points that arise for consideration are :- (1) whether the judgment under this appeal suffers from any perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court? (2) whether the trial Court has justified in convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC? if so, the order of sentence warrants any modification? 9. As recorded above P.Ws.1 and 2 visited the house of P.W.6, the mother-in-law of P.W.2 to attend the funereal ceremony of the son of P.W.6 and the accused demanded a sum of Rs. 3,000/- to white wash his house, since the brother-in-law of P.W.2 died in the house of the accused, for which P.W.2 agreed to white wash his house. But the accused refused to white wash his house and demanded a sum of Rs.3,000/-. In the said quarrel the accused attacked P.W.2 and caused grievous injuries. When P.W.2 was admitted in the hospital, P.W.10, on information went to the hospital and recorded the statement from P.W.1 under Ex.P.1 and registered a case in Crime No. 301 of 2009, Ex.P.8. But the accused refused to white wash his house and demanded a sum of Rs.3,000/-. In the said quarrel the accused attacked P.W.2 and caused grievous injuries. When P.W.2 was admitted in the hospital, P.W.10, on information went to the hospital and recorded the statement from P.W.1 under Ex.P.1 and registered a case in Crime No. 301 of 2009, Ex.P.8. The occurrence was took place on 03.03.2009 at about 6.45 p.m., and the First Information Report was registered at about 7.45 p.m. Therefore, within an hour the First Information Report got registered, as such there is no delay in registering the FIR as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. 10. P.W.2 sustained grievous injuries and the Doctor P.W.7, who treated him issued Accident Register under Ex.P.6. Even though, the injuries sustained by P.W.2 had no fracture, the first injury is on his neck, amounts to grievous one and it may cause death. Therefore, the accused caused grievous injuries on P.W.2. Further P.W.7, the Doctor deposed as follows :- “Any Other Language” Therefore, the injuries sustained by P.W.2 would cause death and the prosecution proved the offence under Section 307 of IPC committed by the accused. 11. Admittedly, the accused and P.W.2 had no previous enmity and they are strangers to each other. Unfortunately, on the fateful day, the accused refused to agree to white wash his house as offered by P.W.2 and the quarrel was started and the accused attacked P.W.2 with knife. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the assault committed by the accused due to sudden provocation and as such the alleged occurrence would not attract the offence under Section 307 of IPC. If at all the occurrence owes, the offence under Section 324 of IPC only attract against the accused and as such prayed for modifying the conviction under Section 324 of IPC. Even then, the ingredients of the offence under Section 307 IPC would attract as against the accused. In such circumstances, it is appropriate to consider the Section 307 of IPC which reads as follows :- “307. Even then, the ingredients of the offence under Section 307 IPC would attract as against the accused. In such circumstances, it is appropriate to consider the Section 307 of IPC 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 or 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 herein before mentioned.” 12. In this regard, it is relevant to rely the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India to justify the conviction under Section 307 of IPC under the judgment reported in " AIR 1983 SC 305 - State Of Maharashtra vs Balram Bama Patil and Ors." as follows:- "........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. 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 the 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." It was also held that it was not correct in acquitting the accused of the charge under Section 307 IPC merely because the injuries inflicted on the victims were in the simple in nature. 13. Therefore, the prosecution clearly established the offence against the accused. 13. Therefore, the prosecution clearly established the offence against the accused. The evidence of P.W.2 being the injured, has been rightly accepted by the trial Court that too corroborated by P.W.1 and 6 and as such there is no ground to interferer with the conviction passed by the trial Court. Therefore, having recording all evidence, the learned trial Court has justified in holding that the act committed by the accused was with an intention to murder P.W.2 and therefore, the accused found guilty for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. As such the judgment under this appeal does not suffer from perversity or illegality warranting interference from this Court. 14. Coming to the question of sentence, in view of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the occurrence took place in the year 2009 and as such, the accused suffered torment of criminal proceedings for the last nine years. Further, there was no previous enmity between the appellant and P.W.2 and due to sudden quarrel, in respect of demanding money to white wash his house, the occurrence took place and no motive or intention to kill P.W.2. In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances, the sentence awarded to the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. 15. In the result, the conviction against the accused under Section 307 of IPC passed by the trial Court is confirmed. However, the sentence imposed by the trial Court will stand reduce to rigorous imprisonment of three years. The trial Court is directed to secure the appellant for the purpose of sentencing him to undergo the reduced/modified period of sentence. It is also directed that the period of sentence already undergone by the appellant, if any, shall be given set off, as required under Section 428 Cr.P.C. 16. With the above directions, the criminal appeal is partly allowed.