JUDGMENT : PREM NARAYAN SINGH, J. This criminal appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellants being disgruntled by the judgment dated 13.08.2024, passed by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, District Ratlam, in Sessions Trial No.110/2023, whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence under Sections 307 & 450 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") and sentenced for 04 years R.I. & 02 years R.I. with fine of Rs.2,000/- & Rs.1,000/- and default stipulations. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows that the complainant Hariom Porwal (PW-1) resides in village Berchha and his milk dairy shop is named as "Hariom Doodh Dairy". The appellant Sumit used to come to the complainant's shop to deliver milk, owing to which, complainant knew the appellant. On 06.01.2023, at around 09:30 pm, the complainant (PW-1) was selling milk at his milk shop, when the appellant- Sumit came to his shop, he was in intoxicating condition on motorcyle and he started to abuse him. While doing so, he asked to give milk. When the complainant asked for money after giving him milk, the appellant said that he did not recognize him and after buying milk he did not pay money. Again complainant asked for money, on which, appellant forcibly took milk from the complainant and threatened to kill him without giving money. After sometime, the appellant came into his shop and while abusing the complainant, stabbed him with a knife on his stomach. Due to which, he got injured and bleeding was started. At that time, complainant raised a noise, and people nearby the shop, came there and appellant/Sumit ran away from there on his motorcycle. Doctor Sanjay from his clinic located near the complainant’s shop, had given first aid to the complainant and when brother Rajesh of the complainant came to know about the incident, he reached on his shop and took the complainant to the hospital by auto. Wherein he was admitted and treated. Thereafter, the complainant has made a complaint. Upon the said report, Police Station Industrial Area, District Ratlam lodged an FIR at Crime No.14/2023 for the offence U/s 294, 324, 327, 458 & 506 of IPC. 3. Wherein he was admitted and treated. Thereafter, the complainant has made a complaint. Upon the said report, Police Station Industrial Area, District Ratlam lodged an FIR at Crime No.14/2023 for the offence U/s 294, 324, 327, 458 & 506 of IPC. 3. The police after following the due procedure, prepared the spot map, taken the statements of the witnesses, seized the articles, prepared the medical documents, arrested the accused persons and after due investigation, filed the charge-sheet under Sections 458 , 327, 294, 324, 506, 307 & 329 of IPC. The matter was committed to the Court of Sessions and made over to the learned Trial Court where upon the charges are framed under Sections 294 , 458, 327, 329, 307 & 506 (Part-II) of IPC. The appellant abjured his guilt and took a plea that he had been falsely implicated and prayed for trial. 4. The prosecution on its behalf has examined as many as 10 witnesses namely Sumit [sic] Hariom, complainant (PW-1), Rajesh Porwal, brother of the complainant (PW-2), Laxminarayan (PW-3), Gourav Anand Sharma (PW-4), Sanjay Sharma, Doctor (PW-5), Ajay (PW-6), Vikas (PW-7), Kailash Saini, A.S.I./Investigating Officer (PW-8), Dr. Abhishek Arora, Doctor (PW-9), Raisingh Rawat, Sub-Inspector (PW-10) have been adduced in defence by the appellant. No witness has been produced in defence by the appellant. 5. Learned trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence and argument adduced by the parties, pronounced the impugned judgment on 13.08.2024 and finally concluded the case and convicted the appellant for commission of the said offence under the provisions of Sections 307 & 450 of IPC while acquitting them from the charges under Sections 294 , 506 (Part-II), 327 & 329 of IPC. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant wrongly without considering the evidence available on record. He further submits that in this case single blow was caused on the stomach of the injured. As per the MLC report (Ex.P-10), only one injury (stab would of size 1.5X0.5 c.m.) was found on his stomach. On the basis of single blow, appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 307 of IPC which is not in consonance of law. The testimonies of the witnesses are full of discrepancies and due to that discrepancies, witnesses are not reliable. On the basis of single blow, appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 307 of IPC which is not in consonance of law. The testimonies of the witnesses are full of discrepancies and due to that discrepancies, witnesses are not reliable. Witnesses are related to each other therefore, the testimonies of witnesses are not reliable. In addition to that this is a case of Section 307 of IPC but only single injury has been caused by the appellant with knife, hence, the case comes only under the purview of Section 326 of IPC. 7. In alternate, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 307 & 450 of IPC and sentenced for 04 years R.I. and 02 years R.I. which is on higher side as per the provisions of law. The appellant has already completed custody more than 01 year and 10 months of his incarceration period and prays that appellant deserves some leniency as the appellant already suffered the ordeal of the trial since 2023 i.e. for a period of more than 01 year. It is further submitted that appellant has not disputed the factum that the appellant has assaulted the injured person, but, since the incident had happened all of a sudden, it shall not come in purview of the offence under Section 307 of IPC in view of the MLC report of Dr. Abhishk Arora (PW-9). Hence, learned counsel prays that since the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant wrongly on higher side, his sentence be reduced to the period of already undergone. 8. Learned Government Advocate for the State has opposed the prayer and has invited attention of the Court towards the conclusive paragraphs of the impugned judgement, He has also submitted that the injured person has received the injuries caused by the appellant and the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant by sentencing him appropriately. Hence, prays for dismissal of the appeal. 9. In the backdrop of rival submissions, the question for determination for deciding this appeal is as to whether the findings of learned trial Court regarding conviction and punishment of the appellant under Sections 307 & 450 of IPC is incorrect in the eyes of law and facts or not ? 10. Hence, prays for dismissal of the appeal. 9. In the backdrop of rival submissions, the question for determination for deciding this appeal is as to whether the findings of learned trial Court regarding conviction and punishment of the appellant under Sections 307 & 450 of IPC is incorrect in the eyes of law and facts or not ? 10. In order to bring home the charges, prosecution has relied upon the evidence of witnesses Hariom (PW-1), Rajesh Porwal, brother of the complainant (PW-2), Laxminarayan (PW-3), Gourav @ Anand Sharma (PW-4), Sanjay Sharma, Doctor (PW-5), Ajay (PW-6), Vikas (PW-7) but out of them, witnesses Ajay (PW-6) and Vikas (PW-7) have been declared hostile. Here, it is pertinent to mention that in the deposition sheet of learned trial Court, the name of complainant has been mentioned as Sumit which is the name of accused/appellant. Though, it is clarified by the signature of witness Hariom put in his deposition, that means, the name Sumit has wrongly been mentioned by the trial Court in deposition sheet due to typographical error. For that reason, further, it will be addressed only as Hariom, complainant (PW-1). 11. At the outset, the statement of Hariom, complainant (PW-1) is required to be remunerated. He has clearly stated that on 06.01.2023 at 09:30 pm, appellant Sumit came to his shop to take milk and milk was supplied to him. Then, complainant demanded money in liue of milk. On which appellant declined to pay and after making nuisance, fled away from there. Later on, after 10-15 minutes, he returned and when complainant was busy in taking goods from his fridge for customers, appellant entered into shop and assaulted the complainant Hariom with knife. The statement of this witness finds support from Laxminarayan (PW-3). Laxminarayan (PW-3) has clearly narrated that the accused Sumit had caused injury on the complainant Hariom with knife on stomach. This witness also finds support from the testimony of Dr. Abhishek Arora, Doctor (PW-9) as well as by medical report (Ex.P/10). Dr. Abhishek Arora (PW-9) found one injury on the stomach of inured measuring 1.5X0.5 c.m. The testimony of these witnesses has not been controverted in their cross examination. 12. Further, The witnesses of seizure Rajesh Porwal, Brother of injured (PW-2), Gourav @ Anand Sharma (PW-4) and Sanjay Sharma, Doctor (PW-5) have supported the case of the prosecution. Dr. Abhishek Arora (PW-9) found one injury on the stomach of inured measuring 1.5X0.5 c.m. The testimony of these witnesses has not been controverted in their cross examination. 12. Further, The witnesses of seizure Rajesh Porwal, Brother of injured (PW-2), Gourav @ Anand Sharma (PW-4) and Sanjay Sharma, Doctor (PW-5) have supported the case of the prosecution. However, they are not eye-witnesses and they arrived at the spot later on, nevertheless, they will be taken into account under the rule of res gestae under Section 6 & 7 of the EVIDENCE ACT , 1872. The testimony of these witnesses has not been controverted in their cross-examination. 13. Now, the question as to whether, the appellant can be convicted only on the basis of injured witness Hariom (PW-1). On this aspect, the law is very clear that every injured witness has its special status in the eyes of law. Having said that, this case is well fortified by injured Hariom (PW-1). As far as the importance of testimony of injured witness Hariom (PW- I) is concerned, the view of Hon'ble Apex court rendered in the case of Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2011 SC 2552 is condign to quote here as under:- "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 at the time of occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. Such a witness comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. "Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness." 14. So far as the discrepancies and contradictions came in the statements of witnesses are concerned, actually, counsel for the appellants was not able to point out the discrepancies or contradictions which hit the root of case. With regard to the discrepancies in the statements of witnesses, the Hon'ble Apex court in Babasaheb Apparao Patil v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 2009 SC 1461] the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:- "12. With regard to the discrepancies in the statements of witnesses, the Hon'ble Apex court in Babasaheb Apparao Patil v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 2009 SC 1461] the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:- "12. It is to be borne in mind that some discrepancies in the ocular account of a witness, unless these are vital, cannot per se affect the credibility of the evidence of the witness. Unless the contradictions are material, the same cannot be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety. Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate an otherwise acceptable evidence. Merely because there is inconsistency in evidence, it is not sufficient to impair the credibility of the witness. It is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court would be justified in discarding his evidence." 15. Shri Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant has expostulated that all witnesses are related and interested witnesses, thus on the basis of their testimonies, the appellant can not be convicted. Certainly, the witnesses are related to each other. On this aspect in the case of “ Dilip Singh vs. State of Punjab ” reported as AIR 1953 SC 364 , the full Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in para 26 as under: “26. ……… Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause' for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth.” 16. Further in the case of Masalti vs. State of U?tar Pradesh reported in [ AIR 1965 SC 202 ] wherein it has been held in para 14 as under: “14. ………. There is no doubt that when a criminal Court has to appreciate evidence given by witnesses who are partisan or interested, it has to be very careful in weighing such evidence. ………. There is no doubt that when a criminal Court has to appreciate evidence given by witnesses who are partisan or interested, it has to be very careful in weighing such evidence. Whether or not there are discrepancies in the evidence; whether or not the evidence strikes the Court as genuine; whether or not the story disclosed by the evidence is probable, are all matters which must be taken into account. But it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend that evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witnesses. Often enough, where factions prevail in villages and murders are committed as a result of enmity between such factions, criminal Courts have to deal with evidence of a partisan type. The mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice.” 17. As such, the argument regarding interested witnesses is also appears to be feeble arguments. So far as the relatedness and interestedness is concerned, in a recent decision laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Laltu Ghosh vs. State of West Bangal AIR 2019 SC 1058 is relevant to be referred here: "This Court has elucidated the difference between ‘interested’ and ‘related’ witnesses in a plethora of cases, stating that a witness may be called interested only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation, which in the context of a criminal case would mean that the witness has a direct or indirect interest in seeing the accused punished due to prior enmity or other reasons, and thus has a motive to falsely implicate the accused". 18. As per the human tendency, a close relative would put forth the actual story of incident rather than hide the actual culprit and foist an innocent person. Virtually, in many of the criminal cases, it is often seen that the offence is witnessed by close relatives of the victim, whose presence on the spot of incident would be natural and the evidence of such witness cannot automatically be discarded by leveling them as interested witness. 19. In view of the aforesaid propositions, the evidenciary value of witnesses' testimony cannot be wiped out only on the basis of trivial discrepancies and their relations with the injured. 20. 19. In view of the aforesaid propositions, the evidenciary value of witnesses' testimony cannot be wiped out only on the basis of trivial discrepancies and their relations with the injured. 20. The testimony of eye-witness is also well supported by medical testimonies of Dr. Abhishek Arora (PW-9) as well as by medical report (Ex.P/10) who found one injury on the stomach of inured measuring 1.5X0.5cm and the nature of the said injury was grievous in nature. The prosecution case is also well supported by Investigating Officer Kailash Saini (PW-8). In cross examination, nothing has been adverted by defence counsel for controverting the testimony of all these witnesses. Hence, it is well proved by the prosecution that the injured Hariom has received grievous injury which has been caused by a knife. 21. Now, the question for consideration is as to whether the offence of appellant came in purview of the attempt to murder. As per the prosecution, only single blow was caused by the appellant Sumit on the Stomach of injured Hariom. No repeated blow is adverted by prosecution witnesses. 22. Further, in view of the reports and the nature of the injuries, it cannot be ascertained that the appellant had intention to murder, or knowledge as to the fact that the injured would be killed by these injuries. The prosecution has also not setup that the said injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. In this regard, The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jai Narayan Singh vs. State of Bihar [ AIR 1972 SC 1764 ] mandated as under:- "11.Taking the case of appellant Suraj Mishra, we find that he has been convicted under Section 307 IPC 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 1 1/2" x 1/2 x chest wall deep (wound not probed) on the side of the right side of the chest. Margins were clean out. 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. 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 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 IPC but Section 326 IPC is set aside and we convict him under Section 326-IPC. His sentence of 5 years rigorous imprisonment will have to be reduced accordingly to 3 years rigorous imprisonment." 23. In a recent case of Mukesh S/o Jam Singh Damor vs. State of M.P. & Others 2022 Law Suit (MP) 165; High Court of M.P. Bench has observed as under:- "9. It is well settled that an act which is sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death of the person, but the intention on the part of the accused is lacking, the act would not constitute an offence under Section 307 of IPC. The medical evidence has to be taken for determining the intention of the accused. The intention and knowledge of the act being one of the major factor i.e. used to decide conviction under Section 307 of IPC. The medical evidence has to be taken for determining the intention of the accused. The intention and knowledge of the act being one of the major factor i.e. used to decide conviction under Section 307 of IPC. Before it is held that the act committed by the accused amounts to attempt to murder, it should be satisfied that the act was committed with such intention or knowledge under such circumstances that if it had caused death, it would have amounted to murder." 24. In a recent case of Panchram vs. State of Chattisgarh & Another reported in AIR 2023 SC 1801 , the Hon'ble Apex has considered as under:- "In his statement, the injured appearing as PW-1 submitted that when Munna (PW 6) shouted for help, Kantilal (PW 8) and Radheyshyam (PW 9) came there and seeing them the accused ran away. However, Kantilal (PW 8) was declared hostile. The prosecution had produced another witness Radhey Shyam (PW 7). He was also declared hostile and did not support the prosecution version. Even the scissors which was seized by the police is small scissors which is used by tailors. With the aforesaid evidence on record and the kind of weapon used, in our view the offence will not fall within Section 307 I.P.C. From the reasons for fight as are emerging on record, it doesn’t seem to be pre-planned act. It, at the most, can fall within the four corners of Section 326 IPC as a sharp-edged weapon was used. The injuries were not caused with an intention to cause death and were not sufficient to cause death. Hence, in our view the conviction of the appellant with respect Section 307 IPC cannot be sustained however the offence under Section 326 IPC is made out." 25. It is worth to mention here that at the time of incident, injured Hariom was a single person and appellant Sumit had gave a single blow on his stomach. No repeated blows were caused on vital part of the injured. Since, he has not caused repeated blows, the intention of causing death is evidently lacking. Hence, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, the appellant cannot be punished under Section 307 of IPC for causing voluntarily grievous injury which is punishable under Section 326 of 1PC. 26. Since, he has not caused repeated blows, the intention of causing death is evidently lacking. Hence, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, the appellant cannot be punished under Section 307 of IPC for causing voluntarily grievous injury which is punishable under Section 326 of 1PC. 26. So far as the offence under Section 450 of IPC is concerned, as per aforesaid discussion, it is apparently revealed that the appellant entered into the shop of complainant and attacked him, when he was taking goods from fridge. The offence proved against the appellant is punishable with imprisonment of life. Therefore, the findigs of learned trial Court regarding conviction and sentence under Section 450 doesn’t require any interference. 27. Now, turning to the point of sentence, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is a poor person and he is the sole earner of bread and butter for his family. He has already sufffered incarceration of more than 01 year. He is having no criminal antecedents. Therefore, linient view should be adopted. 28. In view of the aforesaid submissions and also aforesaid discussion, the sentence of 03 years R.I. under Section 326 of IPC would meet to the end of justice. 29. Hence, in view of the aforesaid analyses and in entirety, the conviction under Section 307 of IPC is liable to be and is hereby set aside and instead of that the appellant is liable to be convicted under Section 326 of 1PC. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and appellant is convicted under Section 326 of IPC instead of the offence under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced for 03 years R.I. with enhanced fine of Rs.10,000/- from Rs.2,000/-. So far as the offence under Section 450 of IPC is concerned, learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant and sentence for 02 years R.I. alongwith fine of Rs.1,000/-, hence, the same doesn’t warrant any interference. 30. In case of failure to deposit the fine amount, he shall further to undergo for 3 months S.I. Out of the total fine amount, Rs.5,000/- shall be paid to the Hariom, complainant/injured as compensation under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. by the trial Court. 31. The fine amount, if already deposited as well as the compensation amount paid, if any, shall be adjusted. 32. The appellant is in jail. 31. The fine amount, if already deposited as well as the compensation amount paid, if any, shall be adjusted. 32. The appellant is in jail. He shall be released from the jail after completion of his respective jail sentence and depositing the remaining fine amount or after completion of default sentence. It is clarified that his substantial sentence shall run concurrently while the fine will be deposited by appellant in each offence separately and default sentence will not run concurrently if the fine amount is not deposited by the appellant. 33. The order of learned trial Court regarding disposal of the seized property, if any, stands confirmed. 34. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance. 35. Pending application, if any, stands closed. Certified copy, as per rules.