JUDGMENT : 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 26.09.1983 passed by Xth Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad in Session Trial No. 251 of 1983 (State Vs. Sadan Yadav) arising out of Crime No. 1093 of 1981, Police Station Colonelganj, District Allahabad by which appellants (Sadan Yadav and Govind Patel) have been convicted under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of six years and fine of Rs. 1000/-for each in default to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. During pendency of appeal, appellant no. 2 Govind Patel has died, therefore, appeal on his part stood abated. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that there was dispute between appellants and informant Ashok Kumar relating to money taken by the appellant Sadan for liquor and not returning it to him. On 29.12.1981 at about 6 p.m. informant Ashok Kumar was returning his house. In the way he heard some foot steps behind him. As he turned, he saw two persons Sadan Yadav and Govind Patel. They hurled bombs on him, those fell near his legs and exploded causing injuries on his both legs. His pant/trouser also got burnt. On his cry Ram Dei, Lalla and Pappu came there and witnessed the incident. Meanwhile, both the appellants fled away. Informant Ashok Kumar lodged an F.I.R. on the same day at the police station about 18.30 hours as crime no. 1093 of 1981 under Sections 307/427 IPC. Majroobi Chitthi was prepared by the constable clerk and injured Ashok Kumar was sent to Tej Bahadur Sapru, Hospital, Allahabad for medical examination. Following injuries were found on his person:- I. Multiple lacerated wounds of various sizes in an area of 17 cm x 4 cm in front of the right leg from right knee joint to right ankle joint. Fresh bleeding present from the wounds. II. Multiple lacerated wounds of various sizes in an area of 16 cm x 5 cm in front of the left leg from the lower part of the left knee joint up to the ankle joint. Fresh bleeding present from the wounds. Foreign bodies present in the wounds and there are redness all round the wounds. III. Abrasion 1 cm x ½ cm on the posterior aspect of the right forearm 2 cm below the right elbow joint. Fresh bleeding present from the wounds. Foreign bodies present in the wounds and there are redness all round the wounds. III. Abrasion 1 cm x ½ cm on the posterior aspect of the right forearm 2 cm below the right elbow joint. The Doctor was of the opinion that injury no. 1 and 2 were caused by some blust (Probably the word intended to be used was blast). Injury no. 3 was caused by friction. Duration of injuries fresh. 4. The investigation of the case was handed-over to Sub-Inspector Rama Shankar Tiwari, who investigated the case, collected the evidence and submitted charge sheet under Sections 307/427 IPC against the appellants. 5. The court concerned, took cognizance of the offence and after complying the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C, committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial. 6. The learned trial court framed charge under Section 307 IPC against the appellants on the basis of material on record which was read-over and explained to the appellants. They did not plead guilty but claimed for trial. 7. In support of its case prosecution examined P.W.1 Ashok Kumar who is informant, P.W.2 Lalla, P.W. 3 Santosh @ Pappu as witness of fact, P.W.4 S.I. Rama Shankar Tiwari, (Investigating Officer). P.W.5 Shobh Nath Chaudhary, pharmacist, P.W.6 constable Kaptan Singh who was posted with head-muharrir who lodged the F.I.R. and made entry in G.D. 8. After conclusion of prosecution evidence statement of appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which they stated the incident to be false and witnesses to be inimical. They did not adduce any evidence in defence. 9. After hearing the arguments for accused/appellant as well as the State, learned trial court passed the impugned judgment dated 26.09.1983 while convicting and sentencing the appellants as aforesaid. 10. Being aggrieved with the conviction and sentence this criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants but owing to the death of appellant Govind Patel during pendency of appeal, his appeal was abated. 11. Heard Shri P.K. Singh, learned counsel for appellant-Sadan Yadav and Shri Jai Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for complainant as well as learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The conviction and sentence passed against him is against weight of evidence on record which is bad in law. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The conviction and sentence passed against him is against weight of evidence on record which is bad in law. He further submitted that in this case, incident took place at 6.00 p.m. in the month of December when it becomes dark, therefore, no person can be identified. Doctor who examined the injuries of informant, has not been examined before the court by the prosecution but on his place pharmacist. Likewise, constable clerk who lodged the F.I.R. and made entry in the G.D. has also not been examined. There are material contradictions in the testimony of witnesses which make their testimony unreliable. He further submits that the nature of injuries caused to the person of informant is not grievous. All of them are simple in nature and found on legs. Injury no. 3 is in the nature of abrasion caused by friction against some hard and blunt object which cannot be said to be caused with bomb. In addition to this, the circumstances of the case does not infer the intention of appellant to commit murder which is required for the constitution of offence under Section 307 IPC. In this way offence does not fall within the ambit of Section 307 IPC but it may fall within the ambit of Section 324 IPC as well. Learned trial court has not considered all these facts while passing the judgment but convicted and sentenced the appellant arbitrarily which is illegal and not based on the evidence on record, therefore it is liable to be set aside and appeal be allowed. 13. Learned counsel for complainant as well as learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the contentions made by learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that in this case there was enmity between informant and appellant about money. This was the motive for appellant to cause hurt to the informant as a result, he made an attempt to cause death of informant by hurling bomb on him in company of his friend. Fortunately, injuries were caused on legs and hands of the informant. At that time, there was electric light in which he identified the appellant. Witnesses P.W.2 and P.W.3 also came at the place of occurrence on the call of informant and saw the incident. Fortunately, injuries were caused on legs and hands of the informant. At that time, there was electric light in which he identified the appellant. Witnesses P.W.2 and P.W.3 also came at the place of occurrence on the call of informant and saw the incident. They have stated about the incident lucidly during their examination before the court. There are no material contradictions in their testimony which could be said to make it unreliable. Doctor who examined injury on the person of informant was died that was the reason pharmacist was examined before the court who identified his handwriting. The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt before the trial court as a result learned trial court, after considering the evidence on record convicted and sentenced the appellant. There is no any error of fact or law in the impugned judgment but the appeal lacks merit which is liable to be dismissed. 14. Before dealing with the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant, it will be convenient to take note of the evidence as adduced by the prosecution. 15. P.W.1 informant Ashok Kumar is the injured witness. He has stated that appellants Sadan and Govind are known to him, both of them are fast friends. Prior to one month of the incident Sadan took money from him for drinking. When he asked to return, he was ready to quarrel. On 29th of December at about 6 p.m. he was going to his house from Colonelganj crossing and when he arrived near the house of Ram Dei, he heard sound of foot steps from behind. He turned and saw appellants Sadan and Govind. Meanwhile, appellant Sadan hurled a bomb at him and accused Govind exhorted and also hurled other bomb at him. First bomb fell at the distance of one feet from him and thereafter other bomb fell down. He fell down on the side of elbow, both bombs blasted and he got injuries on his both legs. Incident was seen by Santosh, Lalla and Ram Dei. There was light of electric bulb which was fixed on the outer barja of his house. His house is situated at the distance of 2-3 steps from the house of Ram Dei. Appellants, after committing the incident, fled away. He got Tahreer prepared by Dileep Kumar on the spot and after hearing the contents, he signed it which he proved as Ext. His house is situated at the distance of 2-3 steps from the house of Ram Dei. Appellants, after committing the incident, fled away. He got Tahreer prepared by Dileep Kumar on the spot and after hearing the contents, he signed it which he proved as Ext. Ka-1 before the court. He gave the report in the police station Colonelganj where F.I.R. was lodged and he was sent to Beli Hospital for medical examination. Investigating Officer took his trouser and shoes in his custody and then returned it to him. 16. P.W.2 Lalla and P.W.3 Santosh @ Pappu have also been examined, they have not supported the prosecution version. P.W.2 Lalla stated that he could not see assailants but Ashok Kumar was crying that Sadan and Govind assaulted him. This witness was declared hostile and cross-examination was done by learned A.D.G.C. but nothing came in his statement to support the prosecution story. P.W.3 Santosh @ Pappu has also stated that incident took place at about 8 p.m. in the night. He was sipping tea in his drawing room. He heard sound of bomb blast and came out. There was too much smoke. He went to that side after a while police came there. He saw Ashok injured. This witness also turned hostile and cross-examination was done by learned A.D.G.C. but he expressly stated that he did not see any one while running because there was too much smoke. He has also denied the statement given by him to the Investigating Officer. 17. P.W.4 S.I. Rama Shankar Tiwari had investigated the case. He had proved the investigation and papers prepared by him during investigation. 18. P.W.5 Shobh Nath Chaudhary (pharmacist) has proved the handwriting of Dr. B.K. Sen who conducted medical examination of injured Ashok Kumar and prepared injury report as Ext. Ka-11 in his hand-writing and signature. P.W.5 has also stated that Dr. B.K. Sen has died. He has proved the injury report by comparing with Medico Legal Register brought by him. 19. P.W. 6 constable Kaptan Singh has proved the hand-writing of head muharrir hasan imam who was posted with him at police station on 29.12.1981 and also proved G.D. as Ext. Ka-11 in which entry of F.I.R. was made. 20. From perusal of statements as deposed by P.Ws. 2 & 3, it is evident that both of them had not seen the occurrence. Ka-11 in which entry of F.I.R. was made. 20. From perusal of statements as deposed by P.Ws. 2 & 3, it is evident that both of them had not seen the occurrence. They came there after incident took place and appellant fled away. Their testimony is of no use to the prosecution. 21. P.W.1 Ashok Kumar is informant as well as injured witness. Testimony of sole witness is to be considered with care and caution. Since he is injured witness, therefore his presence on the spot cannot be denied. The reliability of injured witness has been explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Naresh and others (2011) 4 SCC 324 . Para no. 23 is quoted as under : …..................The evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage being a stamped witness, thus, his presence cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. The witness would not like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely for the commission of the offence. Thus, the evidence of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein. [Vide: Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719 ; Balraje @ Trimbak v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 6 SCC 673 ; and Abdul Sayad v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 10 SCC 259 ]. 22. [Vide: Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719 ; Balraje @ Trimbak v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 6 SCC 673 ; and Abdul Sayad v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 10 SCC 259 ]. 22. In another decision of Mamo Dutt vs. State of U.P. (2012) 4 SCC 79 , Hon'ble the Apex Court observed about the evidentiary value required to be attached to the evidence of an injured witness: “Normally, an injured witness would enjoy greater credibility because he is the sufferer himself and thus, there will be no occasion for such a person to state an incorrect version of the occurrence, or to involve anybody falsely and in the bargain protect the real culprit.”………………. 23. Again in the case of Balwan Singh & others vs. State Of Haryana (2014) 13 SCC 560 Hon'ble the Apex Court observed thus: “It is trite law that the evidence of injured witness, being a stamped witness, is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that injury to the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness would not want to let actual assailant go unpunished.” 24. P.W.1 injured Ashok Kumar is still acquainted with the appellants from before occurrence. He has clearly stated during cross-examination that Sadan Yadav was his tenant in his house, so he knew him very well and other appellant Govind was his fast friend. Further, he has also stated that at the time of incident there was electric light from the bulb which was fixed on the outer barja of his house. In the electric light, he identified the appellant when he heard the sound of foot steps, he turned and saw the appellants then they hurled bomb at him. In this way, it cannot be said that informant Ashok Kumar could not identify the appellant in darkness at evening in lack of light. The fact of electric light and bulb has also been verified by Investigating Officer who had visited the site on the same day night. In the site plan Ext. Ka-5 the place of bulb had also been shown by Investigating Officer which is not to much distant from the place of occurrence. As a result there remains no suspicion regarding identification of appellants by the informant. In the site plan Ext. Ka-5 the place of bulb had also been shown by Investigating Officer which is not to much distant from the place of occurrence. As a result there remains no suspicion regarding identification of appellants by the informant. Remnants of bombs were collected from the place of occurrence by Investigating Officer during investigation, this also supports the statement of informant relating to the use of bomb by appellant. 25. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that there was enmity relating to tenancy and non-payment of rent between the appellant and the informant, that was the reason he had been falsely implicated in this case. In this regard, it is worth mention that P.W.1 Ashok Kumar has stated that though appellant was tenant in his house and he did not pay rent for some period but for recovery of rent, no proceedings were initiated on his part and no any dispute was there between them. Further, it has also to note that appellant was tenant prior to a long period, so it cannot be said that on account of non-payment of rent, informant has implicated falsely. 26. The statement made by informant also gets support with the injuries caused to him and with medical report which was prepared by doctor conducting his medical examination instantly just after the incident at about 07.15 p.m. i.e. after one hour and fifteen minutes from the occurrence. F.I.R. was also lodged at the police station at 6.30 just after 30 minutes, which is very prompt and cannot be said to be belated. 27. During medical examination two injuries were found on his legs, those are caused by bomb blast. As per the opinion of the doctor, injury no. 3 caused by friction. Foreign body were also found in wounds which shows that injuries found on the legs of informant Ashok Kumar were caused by bomb not otherwise. 28. During investigation, remnants of bombs were also collected by Investigating Officer and Fard was prepared on the spot which has been proved as Ext. Ka-4 by Investigating Officer, it also gives support to the prosecution version. 29. In this way, the testimony as deposed by P.W.1 informant Ashok Kumar is wholly reliable and it gets support with the medical report. 30. Ka-4 by Investigating Officer, it also gives support to the prosecution version. 29. In this way, the testimony as deposed by P.W.1 informant Ashok Kumar is wholly reliable and it gets support with the medical report. 30. On considering the facts and evidence on record, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant hurled bomb on 29.12.1981 at 6 p.m. On informant Ashok Kumar causing simple injuries on his legs. So finding recorded by learned trial court to this extent, holding guilty to appellant is correct and it requires no interference. 31. So far as, conviction of the appellant under Section 307 IPC is concerned, it is expedient to examine the main ingredients of Section 307 IPC. which are (I) the act attempted should be of such nature that if not prevented or intercepted it would lead to the death of victim, (ii) the intention or mens rea to kill is needed to be proved clearly without doubt. For this purpose the prosecution can make use of the circumstances like attack by dangerous weapon on vital part of body, however, the intention to kill cannot be gauged simply by seriousness of the injury caused, (iii) the intention and knowledge of the result of the act being done is the main thing that is needed to be proved for conviction under Section 307 I.P.C. 32. In this regard, in the case of State Of Maharashtra vs Balram Bama Patil AIR 1983 SC 305 , Hon'ble the Apex Court held in para 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. 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.” 33. In the case of Jage Ram Vs. State of Haryana (2015) 11 SCC 366 , Hon'ble the Apex Court held that: 12. For the purpose of conviction under Section 307 IPC, prosecution has to establish (i) the intention to commit murder and (ii) the act done by the accused. The burden is on the prosecution that accused had attempted to commit the murder of the prosecution witness. Whether the accused person intended to commit murder of another person would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. To justify a conviction under Section 307 IPC, it is not essential that fatal injury capable of causing death should have been caused. Although the nature of injury actually caused may be of assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be adduced from other circumstances. The intention of the accused is to be gathered from the circumstances like the nature of the weapon used, words used by the accused at the time of the incident, motive of the accused, parts of the body where the injury was caused and the nature of injury and severity of the blows given etc. 34. Again it was reiterated in the Case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kanha @ Om Prakash, Crl. A. No. 1589 of 2018. 35. For the conviction under this section more importance has been given to mens rea or intention than the actus reus or the actual act itself. 34. Again it was reiterated in the Case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kanha @ Om Prakash, Crl. A. No. 1589 of 2018. 35. For the conviction under this section more importance has been given to mens rea or intention than the actus reus or the actual act itself. The attempt should arise out of a specific intention or desire to murder the victim. The nature of weapon used, the manner in which it is used, motive for the crime, severity of the blow, the part of the body where the injuries inflicted, all are taken into consideration to determine the intention. 36. In this case, in the F.I.R. it has not been stated by the informant that appellant had expressed his intention at any time to kill him. What he said is that he gave some money to appellant for drinking which was not returned to him. On asking for the money, appellant got annoyed, that was the reason, appellant assaulted him. Even at the time of incident, nothing was uttered by the appellant which could disclose his intention to kill him. No any such statement has been made by the informant during his examination before the court. The bomb which was hurled by the appellant fell on the ground near the place of informant which caused injuries of his legs. He did not repeat it again. All the injuries are simple in nature. These were not dangerous to life. Bomb was not hurled on the head or some other vital part of the body of informant. This also does not infer the intention of appellant to kill the informant. The manner of committing the offence shows that appellant had intent to cause voluntarily simple hurt to informant but not to commit his murder. 37. In the case of Ramesh Vs. State of U.P. AIR 1992 S.C. 664 where a single injury was found in the back of the neck of injured, appellant who was tried alongwith two others under Section 307/34 IPC and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years while two other were acquitted, appeal was partly allowed by Hon'ble the Apex Court. His conviction was altered into Section 324 IPC and sentence was reduced to the period already undergone with fine of Rs. 3000/-which was to be paid to the complainant as compensation. 38. His conviction was altered into Section 324 IPC and sentence was reduced to the period already undergone with fine of Rs. 3000/-which was to be paid to the complainant as compensation. 38. In the case of Merambhai Punjabhai Khachar & Ors vs. State Of Gujarat, 1996 AIR 3236, there was an attempt to commit murder with fire arm and injury was by a pellet that struck the head, Hon'ble the Apex Court held that Section 307 IPC cannot be held to have been satisfied and conviction was altered to Section 324 IPC. 39. In the case of Neelam Bahal and another Vs. State of Uttarakhand 2010 (2) SCC 229 where conviction and sentence of appellant under Section 307 IPC was converted into Section 326 IPC simplicitor. Incident took place in the year 1987 and appellant was about 25 years old. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble the Apex Court, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by him. 40. In the present case, as regards the injuries, there is no evidence on record to show that these injuries could be fatal for life of the injured or that injuries were caused by the appellant with intention to kill the injured. Besides, injuries on the body of injured were not on vital part of the body i.e. legs. Thus, it clearly shows that there was no intention of the accused appellant to kill the injured. The injured sustained simple injuries on non-vital part of his body. 41. In these circumstances of the case, this court is of the view that conviction of the appellant under Section 307 IPC cannot be sustained but appellant is liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 324 IPC. 42. Again it is noteworthy that the incident took place in the year 1981 i.e. 40 years ago and it is said that now appellant is above 60 years old person. Record does not show that the appellant has any criminal antecedent and learned counsel for appellant has also submitted the same which could not be rebutted by learned counsel for the State. 43. To sum up, the conviction & sentence imposed on the appellant under Section 307 IPC is set aside instead he is convicted under Section 324 IPC and the period of sentence is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him besides a fine of Rs. 43. To sum up, the conviction & sentence imposed on the appellant under Section 307 IPC is set aside instead he is convicted under Section 324 IPC and the period of sentence is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him besides a fine of Rs. 5000/-in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The amount so deposited be paid to the complainant as compensation. 44. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.