JUDGMENT : 1. The present appeal has been filed by the convicted accused against the judgment of Sessions Court in Sessions Case No.51/2018 dated 16.11.2019, whereby the appellant/accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.30,000/- with default clause. 2. The incident giving rise to the present appeal took place around 9.30 a.m., on 12.05.2018 near village temple. The informant Pradeep is the younger brother of the appellant/accused Ajit. There happen to be a land dispute in between two real brothers since long. On the date of incident, the informant went to his cattle shed and found that it was locked by somebody. The informant called the Village Sarpanch and some other persons. In their presence, the Village Panchas broke open the lock and handed over possession of the cattle shed to the informant. Thereafter around 9.30 a.m., the informant Pradeep went to the village temple of God Rama, and seated there. At that time, the appellant / accused Ajit arrived and started to beat the informant by fist blows and slaps. In the said quarrel the informant fell down on which the appellant took out a knife from pocket of his trousers and dealt blows on stomach, back and hand of the informant. In said assault, the informant sustained bleeding injury, hence, initially he was shifted by villagers to Government Hospital at Buldhana, and then as per the medical advise was shifted to Dhoot Hospital at Aurangabad. On the following day the concerned police of Amdapur Police Station went to Dhoot Hospital at Aurangabad and recorded statement of injured informant Pradeep. After returning to Amdapur, the police registered crime vide C.R.No. 125/2018, for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The police investigated the matter. The panchnama of the scene of offence was drawn in which simple and blood mixed earth and blade of knife lying at the place of occurrence was seized. Statement of necessary witnesses were recorded. On completion of the investigation, final report came to be filed. The accused denied the charges by claiming innocence. The prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses to establish the guilt. The prosecution also banks upon certain documents including the injury certificate, medical case papers, C.A. report etc. Statement of necessary witnesses were recorded. On completion of the investigation, final report came to be filed. The accused denied the charges by claiming innocence. The prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses to establish the guilt. The prosecution also banks upon certain documents including the injury certificate, medical case papers, C.A. report etc. The Trial Court believed the evidence of injured Pradeep which was corroborated by the medical evidence. On that basis, the trial Court delivered judgment and order of conviction as mentioned above. 4. Heard Shri Abdul Subhan, learned Counsel for the appellant / accused and Ms. M. Deshmukh, A.P.P. for respondent State. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has made two fold submissions. The first submission is that the evidence on record is too sketchy and unsafe to draw the inference of the guilt. The trial Court manifestly erred in recording judgment of conviction solely on the basis of the evidence of the informant. The trial Court failed to appreciate that all the eye witnesses turned hostile, meaning thereby the informants’ evidence was uncorroborated. In the alternative, it is submitted that the prosecution has not established the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, and at the most the accused can be convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The second submission is based on the premise of nature of injuries sustained by the informant. It is argued that, this being a family matter, the victim can be released on undergone punishment by imposing certain additional fine towards compensation. 6. Per contra, the learned A.P.P. has supported the judgment and order of conviction. It is her submission that the evidence of injured inspires full confidence and therefore, conviction can be safely based on his evidence. The medical evidence supports the informants unimpeached testimony. There was adequate motive for the accused to assault his younger brother. With this, she urged for confirmation of the impugned judgment and dismissal of the appeal. 7. Though the prosecution has examined so many witnesses, however, the evidence of the informant P.W.1 – Pradeep carries importance. It is unfortunate for the prosecution that two eye witnesses P.W. 2- Ankush Jadhao and P.W. 3 – Gopal Ingle, remained back footed at the time of giving evidence on crucial aspect. The next batch of witness is of Medical Officer and Investigating Officer. 8. It is unfortunate for the prosecution that two eye witnesses P.W. 2- Ankush Jadhao and P.W. 3 – Gopal Ingle, remained back footed at the time of giving evidence on crucial aspect. The next batch of witness is of Medical Officer and Investigating Officer. 8. It is submitted that there was a dispute between two brothers on the issue of ancestral property i.e. agricultural land. During cross examination of the informant it has amply come on record that the agricultural dispute was going on in between two brothers since the year 2015. In such a backdrop the informant stated that on 12.05.2018, he came across that his cattle shed was locked by somebody, and in presence of Sarpanch and Village Panchas, the lock was removed and possession was handed over to him. After some time, when he was seated near the village temple, accused Ajit arrived, suddenly took out a knife from his trouser and dealt blows on his abdomen, back and left shoulder, leaving him in the pool of blood. The informant faced cross examination which remained abortive. 9. As noted above, though two eye witnesses turned hostile however, they corroborated the evidence of the informant to the extent of quarrel between two brothers. P.W.3 Gopal, stated that in said quarrel clothes of informant were stained with blood. In other words both eye witnesses corroborated on the point of presence of the accused and quarrel in between them. It is a settled law that the portion of evidence of hostile witness can be relied which inspires confidence of the Court. 10. As per prosecution case, soon after the occurrence the informant Pradeep was admitted in Government Hospital at Buldhana for preliminary treatment. Thereafter he was shifted to Dhoot Hospital at Aurangabad, where he remained indoor patient from 12.05.2018 to 21.05.2018. It is prosecution case that the informants condition deteriorated, hence, he was again admitted to Dhoot Hospital on 27.05.2018, and was discharged on 30.05.2018. The prosecution has led evidence of P.W. 7 Dr. Manisha Sudam Kharat (Exh.42) from Civil Hospital, Buldhana, who has initially examined the injured informant. It is prosecution case that the informants condition deteriorated, hence, he was again admitted to Dhoot Hospital on 27.05.2018, and was discharged on 30.05.2018. The prosecution has led evidence of P.W. 7 Dr. Manisha Sudam Kharat (Exh.42) from Civil Hospital, Buldhana, who has initially examined the injured informant. On examination she found three injuries on the person of the informant, which are as below :- [1] Stab wound of right hypocondrium of size 3 x 2 c.m.; the type of weapon : sharp and hard; probable age of injury was within 24 hours; healing time : in absence of complication – not mentioned. Other examination was required. Type of injury : grievous. [2] Stab wound of size 2 C 1 c.m. on left flank, caused by sharp and hard weapon, probable age of injury was within 24 hours, healing period : not mentioned; type of injury : grievous. [3] Contused lacerated wound on left arm lateral aspect of size 3 x 1 x 1 c.m. caused by sharp and hard weapon, probable age of injury was within 24 hours; healing period : not mentioned; type of injury : grievous. According to the Medical Officer, there were two stab wounds, one at upper portion of right stomach and another on left side of the back. These two wounds were caused by sharp and hard object. The medical certificate to that effect (Exh.39) is produced on record along with the case papers (Exh.41). 11. The prosecution has further examined P.W 9 – Dr. Vijay Borgaonkar (Exh.46) from Dhoot Hospital, Aurangabad. He has also noted two injuries on the person of the informant, which are as under : [1] Incised wound, vertical of size 4 x 1 c.m. deep, blood oozing in right hypochondriac region. [2] Vertical incised wound of size 4 x 1 c.m. in left lumber region, blood oozing. He has issued medico legal certificate (Exh.47) for that purpose. In examination he noted that injuries were at stomach and lumber region, which were incised wounds. The said medical evidence strongly corroborates the evidence of the informant. Always the evidence of injured, eye witnesses stands on high pedestal. The testimony of informant Pradeep was well corroborated by FIR and supporting medical evidence, therefore, there is no manner of doubt that the accused assaulted Pradeep by means of knife, causing him bleeding injuries. 12. The said medical evidence strongly corroborates the evidence of the informant. Always the evidence of injured, eye witnesses stands on high pedestal. The testimony of informant Pradeep was well corroborated by FIR and supporting medical evidence, therefore, there is no manner of doubt that the accused assaulted Pradeep by means of knife, causing him bleeding injuries. 12. Having held so, the next question is to see as to what sort of offence has been committed by the accused by his act. The learned Trial Court held that the accused has committed an offence of attempt of commit murder, punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Shri Abdul Subhan, the learned Counsel for the appellant has straneously argued that the injuries sustained by the informant were of simple nature and therefore, by no stretch of imagination the offence of attempt to commit murder would attract. According to him without any supporting material, medical officer (P.W.7) Dr. Archana has categorized first two injuries as of grievous nature. He took me through the term “grievous hurt” as defined under Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code to impress that the injuries sustained by the informant would not fall in either of the category. According to him, neither there was fracture, nor dislocation or permanent privation of any part of the body. Particularly he has highlighted that, as per clause eightly of Section 320, there is requirement that the injured shall suffer for 21 days severe bodily pain so as to make him unable to follow his ordinary pursuits. According to him, the injured was hospitalized from 12.05.2018 to 21.05.2018 only. He referred the medical case papers to impress that, as the injured was fully recovered, he was discharged on 21.05.2018. It is his submission that the injuries would not fall within the term of ‘grievous hurt’, and therefore, only offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code would attract. 13. At first blush the submission appears to be lucrative, but, it is against the legal position. Basically in order to constitute an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, existence of grievous hurt is not sine qua non. It is settled law that, even in absence of any physical injury, the offence of attempt to commit murder would complete under certain circumstances. Basically in order to constitute an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, existence of grievous hurt is not sine qua non. It is settled law that, even in absence of any physical injury, the offence of attempt to commit murder would complete under certain circumstances. In this regard useful reference can be made to the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Maharashtra vrs. Balram Bama Patil and others ( AIR 1983 SC 305 ), where in paragraph no.9, it is observed as under : “9. …...To justify a conviction under this section 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 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.” 14. In view of above, the exercise which the learned counsel for the appellant tries to undertake, is unwarranted. It is not a case to merely decide whether the offence under Section 326 or Section 324 has been committed. In that case one may have a deeper scrutiny of the facts to see whether the injuries found on the victim would constitute a simple hurt or grievous hurt. It is not a case to merely decide whether the offence under Section 326 or Section 324 has been committed. In that case one may have a deeper scrutiny of the facts to see whether the injuries found on the victim would constitute a simple hurt or grievous hurt. However, it is a case of attempt to murder by stabbing with knife at stomach and, therefore, there is no necessity to consider said submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. In cases where only question is to see whether the injury amounts to grievous or simple, then the examination of nature of injury is decisive factor. However, under charge of attempt to commit murder, intention and knowledge of the accuses is the prime consideration, apart from nature of injury. Therefore, only on the basis of nature of injury, matter cannot be decided. 15. In order to impress from the nature of injuries that, it is a case of simple hurt, the learned Counsel for the appellant has relied on some decisions of this Court, as well as of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Pertinent to note that there cannot be identical facts of two criminal case so as to borrow the conclusion of one case for another. However, to complete the points in all respect, I have gone through the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the appellant. 16. Initially he has relied on the decision of this Court in case of State of Maharashtra .vrs. Baban Tukaram Ingole (Criminal Appeal No. 59/2006 (Nagpur Bench) dated 26.06.2019). It was a State Appeal challenging the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court by reversing the order of conviction recorded by the Magistrate under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, the issue was whether the injuries sustained by the victim falls within the category of simple hurt or grievous hurt. In that perspective, the matter was examined, and ultimately this Court found that it was a simple hurt. Herein, the question posed is distinct to see whether there was an attempt to commit murder, and not whether the injury was of grievous nature or of simple nature. Hence, the said reliance is misplaced one. Secondly, the appellant has relied on the decision of this Court in case of Saleem Abdul Majid Bagwan .vrs. State of Maharashtra – 2014 (1) BCR (Cri) 389. Hence, the said reliance is misplaced one. Secondly, the appellant has relied on the decision of this Court in case of Saleem Abdul Majid Bagwan .vrs. State of Maharashtra – 2014 (1) BCR (Cri) 389. In said case, the then accused has challenged the judgment and order of conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, which was converted in appeal into conviction under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. In that case, there were two injuries on the person of the victim, one on left hypo condrium region and another over posterior left arm. Having regard to those circumstances, this Court showed its inclination to convert the conviction under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. There is nothing to indicate that in which circumstances the offence was committed; from where the weapon was procured; whether it was a pre-planned attack, etc. Therefore, in absence of all these details no benefit can be derived from the said decision which was based on facts. The appellant has further relied on the decision of this Court in case of Rajesh Damodhar Ingole .vrs. State of Maharashtra – 2013 All MR (Cri) 3377. In said case also the punishment was converted under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of the facts of that case, hence, it is also of no assistance. 17. The appellant would submit that this being a dispute in between two brothers, it is advisable to release the accused on already undergone punishment by imposing certain additional fine towards compensation. In this regard he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Vinay and others vrs. State of Karnataka and another – 2015 All MR (Cri) 2004. True, in said case the Karnataka High Court has modified the conviction of the accused from Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code to Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. It was a dispute between two real brothers. The assault was by a club and some other weapons. Having regard to the close relationship, the period of more than 13 years passed from the incident, and taking into account other circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reduced the sentence of three months imprisonment to the period already undergone and imposed a fine of Rs.25,000/- to be paid towards compensation. Having regard to the close relationship, the period of more than 13 years passed from the incident, and taking into account other circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reduced the sentence of three months imprisonment to the period already undergone and imposed a fine of Rs.25,000/- to be paid towards compensation. Initially it is to be borne in mind that merely because there happen to be a dispute between two brothers, that cannot be a sole criteria to either convert the conviction from Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code to Section 326 of the Code, or to reduce the quantum of sentence. True, that can be one of the criteria while awarding punishment. In said case both the parties were armed, there was sudden fight; 13 years period had lapsed, hence, taking into account all these circumstances, the sentence was reduced. The said decision was totally based on the facts of that case, and therefore, it has no application to the case at hand. 18. The last reliance by the appellant is on the decision of this Court in case of Waman Tulshiram Ghodmare vrs. State of Maharashtra – 2018 (4) Mh.L.J. (Cri) 754. The facts of said case are quite distinct as the then informant himself has gone to the house of the accused to borrow money. Obviously, there was no plan of accused to assault the victim and in such circumstances quarrel took place in which the accused caused injury by stick and stone. Particularly, the informant was tied, but, despite opportunity, was not done to death. Having regard to those special circumstances, this Court has converted the punishment from Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code to Section 324 of the Code and released the accused by imposing punishment of undergone detention of 4 months. The case in hand is having quite distinct feature, therefore, the said decision would not come to the rescue of the appellant. 19. Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is a specific offence made punishable for attempt to commit murder. Generally most of the attempts to commit different offences are punishable under Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, however, attempt to commit murder is made specifically punishable under Section 307 of the Code. 19. Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is a specific offence made punishable for attempt to commit murder. Generally most of the attempts to commit different offences are punishable under Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, however, attempt to commit murder is made specifically punishable under Section 307 of the Code. Presence of distinct feature that, if the act was done with requisite intention or knowledge to cause death, then this offence is complete on survival of the victim. To bring the case within the ambit of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to make out the facts and circumstances envisaged by Section 300 of the Code. It is not necessary to constitute offence that there must be resultant injury. The ingredients of Section are - (1) intention or knowledge relating to commission of murder, and (2) doing of an act towards it. All that is necessary to be established is the intention with which the act is done and if once the intention is established, the nature of act will be immaterial. In other words, the consequence or nature of injury is immaterial, but, certainly it can assist to infer the intention of assailant. 20. Always intention and knowledge of the assailant is to be inferred from totality of circumstances. In this regard, useful reference can be made to the observations contained in paragraph no.7 of the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Hari Kishan and State of Haryana .vrs. Sukhbir Singh and others – AIR 1988 SC 2127 , the same reads as under : “7. …... Under S.307 IPC 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 that section. The intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute’ murder. Without this ingredient being established, there can be no offence of "attempt to murder". Under S. 307 the intention precedes the act attributed to accused. Therefore, the intention is to be gathered from all circumstances, and not merely from the consequences that ensue. The intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute’ murder. Without this ingredient being established, there can be no offence of "attempt to murder". Under S. 307 the intention precedes the act attributed to accused. Therefore, the intention is to be gathered from all circumstances, and not merely from the consequences that ensue. The nature of the weapon used, manner in which it is used, motive for the crime, severity of the blow, the part of the body where the injury is inflicted are some of the factors that may be taken into consideration it, determine the intention.” 21. Admittedly, there was long standing rivalry in between two brothers at the instance of land dispute. On the date of occurrence, the informant got unlocked the cattle shed in presence of village panchas. Rather the said act enraged the accused to swung into immediate reaction. At relevant time, the informant was calmly seated on the platform of village temple. The accused arrived and as of sudden inflicted repeated knife blows on the person of the informant. Pertinent to note that the accused had carried a knife having length of 5 inches blade, which was used for attack. The said very act of the accused postulates his intention to cause injury as knife is not the instrument generally carried by villagers. More so, the accused has dealt first blow at the upper portion of the abdomen, second at the waist and third at the arm of the informant. Obviously, as the informant moved, the later blow fall at lumber region. The first blow which was dealt on upper portion of stomach itself shows the very intention of the accused to cause such bodily injury that it is likely to cause death of a pray. Therefore, the act of the accused undoubtedly falls within the compass of attempt to commit murder, and therefore, the conviction recorded by the trial Court under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is well justified. 22. In so far as the award of sentence is concerned, again one has to re-look to the entire facts and circumstances of the case. The offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years along with fine. 22. In so far as the award of sentence is concerned, again one has to re-look to the entire facts and circumstances of the case. The offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years along with fine. If the hurt is caused, then the punishment may exceed to imprisonment for life or the punishment upto to 10 years. Apparently the legislature in its wisdom has left the judicial discretion to the Courts to mould the sentence befitting to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 23. Having regard to the peculiar facts that, it was a dispute in between two brothers, appellant is of advance age and is suffering from certain ailments, the quantum of punishment can be reduced to some extent by enhancing the compensation amount so as to adequately compensate the victim who had suffered a lot. In view of that, the judgment and conviction of the trial Court is maintained, with modification in sentence that the appellant/ accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years, instead of five years, and shall pay additional fine amount of Rs.20,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months. The additional fine amount if deposited by the appellant/accused, be made over to the informant – victim towards compensation. Rest of the judgment and order is maintained as it is. 24. Appeal is thus, partly allowed and disposed of.