Judgment : (Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.) 1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.02.2023 (Annexure A/1), passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Trial No.41/2021 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Karamsingh Ratre), by which the appellant has been convicted for offences as under :- Conviction Sentence U/s 506 of IPC R.I. for 02 years U/s 307 of IPC R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5000/- and, in default of payment of fine, additional simple imprisonment for 03 months. U/s 201 of IPC R.I. for 03 years with fine of Rs. 1000/- and, in default of payment of fine, additional simple imprisonment for 03 months. (All the sentences are to run concurrently.) 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 17.03.2020 at around 11:30 to 12.00 at night at Village – Soopa, Police Station – Poosour, District - Raigarh, the appellant herein assaulted Ratiram Soni (PW-2) on his head with axe and also threatened him to kill and, thereby, have committed the aforesaid offences. 3. Thereafter, the written complaint was made by Gayatri Soni (PW-01), who is daughter-in-law of the injured/ ex- wife of the appellant, pursuant to which, the police registered FIR (Ex.P/2). Spot Map and Nazari Naksha were prepared vide Ex.P/3 & Ex.P/5 respectively. Pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant (Ex.P/9), recorded in the presence of witnesses namely, Mahendra Ratre (PW-9) and Amritlal Banjare (PW-6), axe was seized vide Ex.P-10. MLC was conducted by Dr. Arun Patel (PW- 10) vide Ex.P-16 and zygomatic bone was found fractured and several lacerated wounds were also present. Query Report is at Ex./17 and as per X-Ray and Test Reports (Ex.P/18 & Ex.P/19), no bone injury was present over the body of the injured. FSL report (Ex.P/24) provides that human blood has been found in the seized undergarments and shirt of the injured. 4. The trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences under Section 506, 307 & 201 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him as above, against which the present appeal has been preferred. 5. Mr. 4. The trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences under Section 506, 307 & 201 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him as above, against which the present appeal has been preferred. 5. Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that that prosecution has not been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and as such, the trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant for the aforesaid offences. In alternative, he would submit that the victim- Ratiram Soni (PW-02) was hospitalized only for three days and, therefore, considering the nature of injury that only zygomatic bone was found fractured and the appellant is in jail since 16.02.2023 i.e. 02 years & 16 days and during the trial he remained in custody for ten days; therefore, he may be sentenced for the period already undergone and the appeal be allowed in part. 6. On the other hand, Dr. Surendra Kumar Dewangan, learned State counsel would support the impugned judgment and submit that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence; therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 8. Now, the question is, whether the trial court is justified in convicting the appellant for offence under Section 307 of the IPC ? 9. 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.” 10. 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.” 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 12. 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. ...” 13. 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. 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”. 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. ...” 14. 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. 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.” 15. Reverting to the facts of the present case, in light of the aforesaid principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court for offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C., it is quite vivid that the victim - Ratiram Soni (PW- 02) has clearly supported the case of the prosecution and has stated that it is the appellant who had assaulted him with axe at mid night and after hearing his cry when his wife - Phuleshwari and his daughter-in-law - Gayatri Soni (PW-01) came out of the room and tried to intervene, then the appellant fled from the spot. The victim suffered serious injuries and was hospitalized for 03 days. Gayatri Soni (PW-1) has clearly supported the case of the prosecution and made statement that her father-in-law- Ratiram Soni (PW-02) was assaulted by the appellant and when she and her mother-in-law - Phuleshwari came out of the room and tried to catch the appellant, he fled away from the scene. Pursuant to memorandum of statement (Ex.P/9) of the appellant, the axe was seized and as per FSL Report (Ex.P/24) traces of human blood were found in the seized underwear and shirt of the injured. The victim was medically examined by Dr. Arun Patel (PW-10) and as per his statement, lacerated and incised wounds were found over the face, head and chest of the injured. X-ray was undertaken vide Ex.P/19 and zygomatic bone was found fractured vide Ex.P/16. Considering the statement of eye-witness and memorandum of statement which led to the property seizure, the conviction of the appellant is well merited based on the evidence available on record. X-ray was undertaken vide Ex.P/19 and zygomatic bone was found fractured vide Ex.P/16. Considering the statement of eye-witness and memorandum of statement which led to the property seizure, the conviction of the appellant is well merited based on the evidence available on record. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the fact that the victim (PW-2) was hospitalized for 04 days and the appellant is 34 years of age, the sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment awarded to the appellant for the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. is reduced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment, the sentence of 3 years rigorous imprisonment awarded to him under Section 201 of I.P.C. is reduced to 1 year rigorous imprisonment and the sentence of 2 years rigorous imprisonment awarded to him under Section 506 of I.P.C. is reduced to 1 year rigorous imprisonment. 16. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. 17. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted forthwith to the concerned trial Court for necessary information & action, if any. A copy of the judgment may also be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent forthwith wherein the appellant is suffering the jail sentence.