Judgment : (Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.) 1. Assail in the present criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the CrPC preferred by the sole appellant-accused, is to the legality, validity and correctness of the judgment dated 26.09.2023 passed by the 2 nd Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, in Sessions Trial No. 100/2022 by which the appellant herein has been convicted for offence under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced thereunder to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs.1,000/-; in default of payment of fine amount the appellant has to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. The case of the prosecution as projected by the prosecution and accepted by the trial Court is that on 26.03.2022 at about 8:45 am, at Dheemar para, in front of shop of Anmol, Police Station Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, the appellant assaulted Durga Dhimar (PW-1) with sickle by which she suffered injuries which were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. She was escorted to the hospital and was undergone for treatment from 26.03.2022 to 30.03.2022. The said incident was reported by Seukram (PW-2), father-in- law of the victim (PW-6), pursuant to which FIR was registered vide Ex.P/4. Nazri naksha was prepared vide Ex.P/1. At the instance of the appellant weapon of offence i.e. sickle and his clothes were seized vide Ex.P/6. Other articles were also seized. Durga Dhimar (PW-1) was medically examined by Dr. Ashiya Parveen (PW-3) who prepared the medical report vide Ex.P/10. As per medical report of the victim (Ex.P/10) proved by Dr. Ashiya Parveen (PW-3), she (PW-1) has suffered 9 injuries over her body. As per query report (Ex.P/13) proved by Dr. Ashiya Parveen (PW-3), the injuries which were found over the body of PW-1 were simple in nature, howeve she has further stated that if PW-1 was not provided medical aid at right in time, then death might be possible as a consequence of injuries sustained by her (PW-1). 3. After due investigation, appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law. The appellant/accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence. 4. 3. After due investigation, appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law. The appellant/accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence. 4. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 25 documents, whereas, the appellant in defence has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence brought on record, pleaded innocence and false implication. 5. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellant for the offence as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment, against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 6. Mr. Shobhit Koshta, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for the offence in question. He would also submit that considering the nature of injuries which were simple in nature and she was hospitalised for 4 days and even all the injuries were on the non vital part of the body. Therefore, the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him as he was in jail since 26.03.2022. Thus, the appeal is allowed in full or part. 7. Mr. Pankaj Singh, learned State counsel, would submit that prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and the appellant is not entitled for acquittal. 8. I have heard learned counsel, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records minutely. 9. Now, the question for consideration, would be whether the trial Court is justified in convicting the appellant for offence under Section 307 of the IPC ? 10.At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice Section 307 of the IPC which states as under: - “307. 9. Now, the question for consideration, would be whether the trial Court is justified in convicting the appellant for offence under Section 307 of the IPC ? 10.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.” 11.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. 12.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”. 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. 13.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. ...” 14.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. 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”. 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. ...” 15.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. 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.” 16.Coming to the facts of the present case in light of the principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments for offence under Section 307 of the IPC , it is quite vivid that the victim Durga Dhimar (PW-1) has clealry supported the case of prosecution. In her statement before the Court she has clearly stated that when she was going for work and reached at Bharr Chowk, appellant came there and assaulted her with sickle by which she suffered grievous injuries. She was escorted to the Patan hospital from where she was further escorted to District Hospital Durg where she was admitted for one month. She has further stated that she had reported the matter against the appellant as he had kidnapped her minor daughter, aged about 6 years. She has been subjected to lengthy cross- examination, but nothing has been extracted to hold that she has falsely implicated the appellant in crime in question. Further considering the medical report (Ex.P/10) of the victim proved by Dr. Ashiya Parveen (PW-3) in which 9 injuries were found over the body of the deceased out of which 3 injuries were found over the neck, 2 injuires were found on the cheeks, 3 injuries were found on the hands and 1 injury were found on the back of the victim. However, Dr. Ashiya Parveen (PW-3) at paragraph No.10 of her statement before the Court has clearly stated that the injuries which were found over the body of the victim (PW-1) were simple in nature. However, Dr. Ashiya Parveen (PW-3) at paragraph No.10 of her statement before the Court has clearly stated that the injuries which were found over the body of the victim (PW-1) were simple in nature. 17.In view of the aforesaid discussion and analysis, I am of the considered opinion that the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for offence under Section 307 of the IPC . However, considering the fact that the victim was admitted in the hospital on 26.03.2022 and got discharged from the hospital on 30.03.2022 as per Ex.P/22; within four days, though as per her statement she was hopitalised for one month, but no evindence has been brought on record by the prosecution in this regard and also considering the age of the appellant i.e. 25 years, I award him sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years while maintaining his conviction for offence under Section 307 of the IPC . 18.This criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. 19.Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned and also the copy of this judgment be supplied to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where he is lodged and suffering jail sentence, forthwith for information and necessary action, if any.