JUDGMENT : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant herein under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25-1-2012 passed in Sessions Trial No.28/2010 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh, District Raigarh, by which the appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced as under: - Conviction Sentences Section 307 of the IPC Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, additional simple imprisonment for six months Section 324 of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default, additional simple imprisonment for three months Section 506 of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default, additional simple imprisonment for three months Section 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act Simple imprisonment for one year (All sentences were directed to run concurrently) 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 22-5-2010 at 8 p.m., the appellant herein assaulted complainant Shivaji Ratnakar (PW-7) by sharp-edged knife while he was brushing his teeth in the courtyard outside his house, on his stomach, right forearm, left forearm, left arm above elbow and also caused incised wound in the size of 4.5 cms. x 2 cms. deep cut near chest. When the complainant (PW-7) shouted, Kiran Kumar (PW-10) came to intervene, then the appellant also assaulted Kiran Kumar (PW-10) who also suffered six incised wounds and thereafter, the appellant also assaulted Puniram (PW-8) and Tipu Sultan (PW-16). Shivaji Ratnakar (PW-7), Kiran Kumar (PW-10) and Tipu Sultan (PW-16) all are sons of Puniram (PW-8). It is the further case of the prosecution that immediately thereafter, on the report of Shivaji Ratnakar (PW-7) on the first information report being made by him, all the injured persons were sent to Primary Health Centre, Sarangarh and articles were seized vide Exs.P-14 to P-19. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-20. Seized knife and other articles were sent for forensic examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) and the FSL report dated 4-8-2010 was brought on record in which blood was found on all articles including knife. 3. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-20. Seized knife and other articles were sent for forensic examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) and the FSL report dated 4-8-2010 was brought on record in which blood was found on all articles including knife. 3. After due investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for offence under Sections 307, 324, 325 & 506 of the IPC and also under Section 25 of the Arms Act before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sarangarh and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Raigarh from where the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh received the case on transfer for trial. 4. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence, examined as many as 17 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 41 documents Exs.P-1 to P-41. Defence has not examined any witness in its support, however, exhibited two documents Exs.D-1 & D-2. Statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he abjured the guilt and pleaded innocence and false implication and claimed to be tried. 5. The trial Court after completion of trial and upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, by its impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment against which he has preferred the instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC. 6. Mrs. Indira Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that all the injuries are simple in nature and no offence except under Section 324 of the IPC would be made out against the appellant, the punishment awarded is disproportionate to the offence in question and as such, it is liable to be set aside. 7. Mr. Sudeep Verma, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondent, would support the impugned judgment and submit that the prosecution has brought home the offences and motive is also established, as the appellant used to outrage the modesty of the daughter {namely, Ku. Sheela (PW-5)} of Puniram (PW-8) and sister of injured witnesses Shivaji Ratnakar (PW-7), Kiran Kumar (PW-10) & Tipu Sultan (PW-16) and on being advised not to do so, the appellant out of anger, assaulted them and as such, there is motive behind the crime by which it can be said that the appellant has intention to commit the offence. Sheela (PW-5)} of Puniram (PW-8) and sister of injured witnesses Shivaji Ratnakar (PW-7), Kiran Kumar (PW-10) & Tipu Sultan (PW-16) and on being advised not to do so, the appellant out of anger, assaulted them and as such, there is motive behind the crime by which it can be said that the appellant has intention to commit the offence. He would further submit that the manner in which the sharp-edged side of knife has been used to cause injuries, it can be interfered that there was intention to cause death and thus, the appellant has rightly been convicted under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 9. On examination by Dr. B.P. Sai (PW-2), Shivaji Ratnakar (PW-7), Kiran Kumar (PW-10), Puniram (PW-8) & Tipu Sultan (PW-16) suffered following injuries and their MLC/injury reports are Exs.P-2, P-4, P-5 & P-6, respectively: - Injuries suffered by the victims/injured witnesses: - 1. Shivaji Ratnakar (PW-7) i. Incised wound 5 x 1.5 c.m. deep cut at right forearm. ii. Incised wound 7 x 3 c.m. deep cut till bone at left forearm. iii. Incised wound 6 x 2.5 c.m. deep cut at left arm above elbow. iv. Incised wound 4.5 x 2 c.m. deep cut near chest. 2. Kiran Kumar (PW-10) i. Incised wound 12 x 4 c.m. deep cut near left side of abdomen till peritoneum deep, rupturing blood vessels. ii. Incised wound 10 x 3.5 c.m. deep cut just above injury No.1, rupturing blood vessels. iii. Incised wound 10.5 x 3 c.m. deep cut near abdomen. iv. Incised wound 4 x 2 c.m. deep cut near left forearm. v. Incised wound 5 x 2 c.m. deep cut near left side of chest. vi. Incised wound 4. 5 x 2 c.m. deep cut near left knee. 3. Puniram (PW-8) i. Incised wound 5 x 1 c.m. deep cut near left side of chest. ii. Incised wound 4 x 0.5 c.m. deep cut near left side of chest. iii. Incised wound 2.5 x 0.25 c.m. skin deep below injury No.1. iv. Incised wound 3 x 1 c.m. deep cut near ring finger of left hand. v. Incised wound 2 x 0.5 c.m. muscle deep cut near middle finger of left hand. 4. ii. Incised wound 4 x 0.5 c.m. deep cut near left side of chest. iii. Incised wound 2.5 x 0.25 c.m. skin deep below injury No.1. iv. Incised wound 3 x 1 c.m. deep cut near ring finger of left hand. v. Incised wound 2 x 0.5 c.m. muscle deep cut near middle finger of left hand. 4. Tipu Sultan (PW-16) i. Incised wound 8 x 4 c.m. muscle deep cut near left thigh. 10. Shivaji Ratnakar (PW-7), Kiran Kumar (PW-10), Puniram (PW-8) & Tipu Sultan (PW-16) all injured witnesses have been examined before the trial Court. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant has developed the feeling of love and intimacy with Ku. Sheela (PW-5) literally and used to outrage her modesty which she has stated in her statement before the Court. She has stated in her evidence that she was a student of Class X in Government High School, Kosir and on being frustrated on account of ill-behaviour and outraging her modesty by the appellant herein, she went to her maternal uncle’s house at Village Chisda during Dashera festival to celebrate the festival where also the appellant reached and started abusing her and the appellant also threatened to kill Shivaji Ratnakar (PW-7). 11. Shivaji Ratnakar (PW-7) – injured witness, in his statement before the Court has stated that on 22-5-2010, outside his house in the courtyard, he was getting himself ready for gudaku (one type of tooth paste used by villagers for cleaning teeth) and in the courtyard, electricity bulk was on and he noticed appellant Pareshwar in the light of torch coming from the side of the house of Chunu, thereafter, the appellant having noticed him {Shivaji Ratnakar (PW-7)}, step-down from his bicycle and took the knife kept in his full-pant and assaulted him on his stomach, right forearm and chest by which he suffered grievous injuries, thereafter, when he cried, his brother Kiran Kumar (PW-10) came out to whom also, the appellant caused incised wound on abdomen, chest, left knee rupturing the blood vessels. Similarly, the appellant also caused injuries to Puniram (PW-8) and Tipu Sultan (PW-16) who tried to intervene. Though Shivaji Ratnakar (PW-7) has been taken to lengthy cross-examination, but he has been consistent and maintained his version throughout and supported the case of the prosecution. Similarly, the appellant also caused injuries to Puniram (PW-8) and Tipu Sultan (PW-16) who tried to intervene. Though Shivaji Ratnakar (PW-7) has been taken to lengthy cross-examination, but he has been consistent and maintained his version throughout and supported the case of the prosecution. Similar statement has been made by other injured Kiran Kumar (PW-10) – brother of Shivaji Ratnakar and Tipu Sultan (PW-16) – another brother of Shivaji Ratnakar. Puniram (PW-8) – father of Shivaji Ratnakar (PW-7), Kiran Kumar (PW-10), Tipu Sultan (PW-16) and Ku. Sheela (PW-5), has also suffered five injuries which have been proved by Dr. B.P. Sai (PW-2). As such, it is clearly established that it is the appellant who caused four incised wounds to Shivaji Ratnakar (PW-7), six incised wounds to Kiran Kumar (PW-10), five incised wounds to Puniram (PW-8) and one incised wound to Tipu Sultan (PW-16), and on forensic examination, blood has been found on the weapon of offence – knife. 12. Now, the question is, whether the trial Court is justified in convicting the appellant for offence under Section 307 of the IPC? 13. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice Section 307 of the IPC which states as under: - “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 of 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 hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by life-convicts.—When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.” 14. Attempts by life-convicts.—When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.” 14. The essential ingredients required to be proved in the case of an offence under Section 307 of the IPC are: (i) that the death of a human being was attempted; (ii) that such death was attempted to be caused by, or in consequence of the act of the accused; and (iii) that such act was done with the intention of causing death; or that it was done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as: (a) the accused knew to be likely to cause death; or (b) was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or that the accused attempted to cause death by doing an act known to him to be so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause (a) death, or (b) such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the accused having no excused for incurring the risk of causing such death or injury. 15. The Supreme Court in the matter of Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh and others, (1988) 4 SCC 551 has held that under Section 307 of the 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 the provision. 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 Section 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. It has been further held that 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 to determine the intention. 16. Similarly, in the matter of State of Maharashtra v. Kashirao and others, (2003) 10 SCC 434 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that for the application of Section 307 of the IPC, it is not necessary that the injury capable of causing death should have been actually inflicted. 16. Similarly, in the matter of State of Maharashtra v. Kashirao and others, (2003) 10 SCC 434 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that for the application of Section 307 of the IPC, it is not necessary that the injury capable of causing death should have been actually inflicted. The injuries sustained, the manner of assaults and the weapons used clearly make out a case of Section 307 of the IPC. It has been observed by their Lordships in para 21 of the report as under: - “21. In offence under Section 307 all the ingredients of the offence of murder are present except the death of the victim. For the application of Section 307, it is not necessary that the injury capable of causing death should have been actually inflicted. The injuries sustained, the manner of assaults and the weapons used clearly make out a case of Section 307 IPC. But since sentence and fine have been maintained, alteration of conviction notwithstanding no modification of sentence need be made. ...” 17. The Supreme Court in the matter of Parsuram Pandey and others v. State of Bihar, (2004) 13 SCC 189 has also held that to constitute an offence under Section 307 of the IPC, two ingredients of the offence must be present: (a) an intention of or knowledge relating to commission of murder; and (b) the doing of an act towards it. It has been held in paragraph 15 of the report as under: - “15. To constitute an offence under Section 307 two ingredients of the offence must be present: (a) an intention of or knowledge relating to commission of murder; and (b) the doing of an act towards it. For the purpose of Section 307 what is material is the intention or the knowledge and not the consequence of the actual act done for the purpose of carrying out the intention. The section clearly contemplates an act which is done with intention of causing death but which fails to bring about the intended consequence on account of intervening circumstances. The intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute murder. In the absence of intention or knowledge which is the necessary ingredient of Section 307, there can be no offence “of attempt to murder”. The intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute murder. In the absence of intention or knowledge which is the necessary ingredient of Section 307, there can be no offence “of attempt to murder”. Intent which is a state of mind cannot be proved by precise direct evidence, as a fact it can only be detected or inferred from other factors. ...” 18. Similarly, the Supreme Court in the matter of Jage Ram and others v. State of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 366 has laid down the ingredients of the offence under Section 307 of the IPC and held as under: “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 the 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. 14. Having regard to the weapon used for causing the head injuries to Sukhbir, nature of injures, situs of the injury and the severity of the blows, the courts below recorded concurrent findings convicting the second appellant under Section 307 IPC. In our considered view, the conviction of the second appellant Rajbir @ Raju under Section 307 IPC is unassailable.” 19. Having regard to the weapon used for causing the head injuries to Sukhbir, nature of injures, situs of the injury and the severity of the blows, the courts below recorded concurrent findings convicting the second appellant under Section 307 IPC. In our considered view, the conviction of the second appellant Rajbir @ Raju under Section 307 IPC is unassailable.” 19. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jai Narain Mishra and others v. State of Bihar, 1971(3) SCC 762 where four to five persons attacked a man with deadly weapons but causing only three simple and one grievous hurt to the injured by farsa, their Lordships held that offence under 326 of the IPC would be made out and held as under in paragraph 11 of the report: - “11. Taking the case of appellant Suraj Mishra, we find that he has been convicted under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentenced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment. According to the evidence Suraj was responsible for the chest injury which is described by Dr. Mishra P.W. 6 as a penetrating wound 1½" x ½” x chest wall deep (wound not probed) on the side of the right side of the chest. Margins were clean cut. Suraj, according to the evidence, had thrust a bhala into the chest when Shyamdutt had fallen as a result of the blow given by Mandeo with the farsa on his head. According to the Doctor the wound in the chest was of a grievous nature as the patient developed surgical emphysema on the right side of the chest. There was profuse bleeding and, according to the Medical Officer the condition of the patient at the time of the admission was low and serious and the injury was dangerous to life. Out of the four injuries which the Medical Officer noted, this injury was of a grievous nature while the other three injuries were simple in nature. Where four or five persons attack a man with deadly weapons it may well be presumed that the intention is to cause death. In the present case, however, three injuries are of a simple nature though deadly weapons were used and the fourth injury caused by Suraj, though endangering life could not be deemed to be an injury which would have necessarily caused death but for timely medical aid. In the present case, however, three injuries are of a simple nature though deadly weapons were used and the fourth injury caused by Suraj, though endangering life could not be deemed to be an injury which would have necessarily caused death but for timely medical aid. The benefit of doubt must, therefore, be given to Suraj with regard to the injury intended to be caused and, in our opinion, the offence is not one under Section 307, I.P.C., but Section 326, I.P.C. His conviction, therefore, under Section 307, I.P.C. is set aside and we convict him under Section 326, I.P.C. His sentence of 5 years rigorous imprisonment will have to be reduced accordingly to 3 years rigorous imprisonment.” 20. Reverting to the facts of the case in the light of the aforesaid principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court for offence under Section 307 of the IPC, it is quite vivid that in this case, the appellant has used knife and caused incised wounds to four injured persons {Shivaji Ratnakar (PW-7), Puniram (PW-8), Kiran Kumar (PW-10) & Tipu Sultan (PW-16)} and most of the injuries were caused on non-vital parts of the body except injury No.4 to Shivaji Ratnakar (PW-7) and injury No.1 to Kiran Kumar (PW-10) and motive of the offence has also been established, but considering the nature of injuries and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Jai Narain Mishra (supra), where three injuries were of simple nature though deadly weapons were used and the fourth injury, though endangering life could not be deemed to be an injury which would have necessarily caused death but for timely medical aid, their Lordships of the Supreme Court altered conviction from Section 307 of the IPC to Section 326 of the IPC, whereas, in the present case, injury No.4 to Shivaji Ratnakar (PW-7) and injury No.1 to Kiran Kumar (PW-10) were definitely endangering life and as such the said injuries could have necessarily caused the death of Shivaji Ratnakar (PW-7) and Kiran Kumar (PW-10) but for timely medical aid. Therefore, having regard to the manner in which the offence is committed and other attending circumstances as noticed herein-above, we are of the considered opinion that offence under Section 307 of the IPC is not made out and the learned Additional Sessions Judge is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for offence under Section 307 of the IPC, it is the offence under Section 326 of the IPC that is made out against the appellant. Accordingly, conviction and sentences imposed upon the appellant under Section 307 of the IPC are set aside and instead thereof, he is convicted under Section 326 of the IPC and sentenced to the period already undergone by him, subject to payment of fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Amount of fine Rs. 1,000/-, if already deposited, shall be adjusted. Out of Rs. 10,000/-, Rs. 9,000/- shall be paid to victim Shivaji Ratnakar (PW-7), S/o Puniram Ratnakar, as compensation under Section 357 of the CrPC within 15 days from the date of deposit of the said amount. However, conviction and sentences imposed upon the appellant under Sections 324, 506 of the IPC and 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act are not being altered and are hereby maintained, as the same is not seriously challenged on behalf of the appellant and upon consideration of the material available on record, we do not find any such material to hold otherwise. 21. The criminal appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above.