ORDER : FARJAND ALI, J. ''7. The Penal law has defined and categorized different acts of the accused with distinct quantum of punishment. Voluntarily causing simple hurt; causing voluntarily simple hurt by using a dangerous weapon or means; voluntarily causing grievous hurt; which has further been clarified by a different provision under Section 326 of the IPC with the definition of voluntarily causing grievous hurt by a dangerous weapon and means. Causing or receiving injury is not an integral part of constituting an offence under the first Clause of Section 307 of the which reads as under:- "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;" 8. The plain reading of the first limb of Section 307 of the IPC makes it abundantly clear that receiving injury in the course of attempt to kill the victim, is not a condition precedent in this clause. The second Clause of this Section begins with the word which are reproduced as under:- "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". 9. The main difference between the first and second Clause is with regard to quantum of punishment only, which is categorized as "if in the course of making an attempt to murder, any injury is received by the victim then, the punishment would be graver than to the first clause". Here, it is also pertinent to mention that no particular kind and nature of injury has been described even in the second limb of Section 307 IPC . It may be a simple or grievous or life endangering injury, it matters not. The only fact would be needed for the second part of is that in the course of attempt to kill, an injury is received by the victim. 10. Having element of an intent to bring the matter within the ambit of of the is a condition precedent. The only fact would be needed for the second part of is that in the course of attempt to kill, an injury is received by the victim. 10. Having element of an intent to bring the matter within the ambit of of the is a condition precedent. Intention is the state of mind of an offender and there could be no physical evidence which can be produced as a thing, object or fact to establish the same in a concrete manner. It has to be inferred from the circumjacent circumstances of the case and the evidence available on record. Intention can be adduced from the act itself as well as from consequences of the fact. Some of the prominent aspects that may be taken into consideration to draw an inference regarding the mental state of the accused are as under:- (i) the number of injuries; (ii) the nature of injuries received by the victim; (iii) the kind of weapon used by the accused for inflicting injury; (iv) the part of body which the accused chosen to inflict the injury; (v) the other surrounding circumstances like time and place of incident whether it was crime place belonged to the accused or it belonged to the victim or a random public place; (vi) previous animosity between the accused and victim which must be of such a degree which would indicate itself strong reason or motive of the accused so as to show the intent to cause death of the victim. It should not be just a discord acrimony or bitter relationship or strife of an ordinary nature or of common petulance. (vii) the position of the accused and the victim at the place of crime; if the accused is in dominating position or rather more in number than to the victim; the victim is in helpless or hapless condition; not hopeful of being rescued or getting assistance from anyone and still if the accused does not take undue advantage of his position by not inflicting more injuries or by not using much force upon the victim, is a strong circumstance to draw an inference regarding the criminal intent of the accused. Not taking undue advantage of his dominating position is a significant sign to show the intent. XXXXXXXXX 22. Not taking undue advantage of his dominating position is a significant sign to show the intent. XXXXXXXXX 22. Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act envisages regarding opinion of the experts as per which When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law or of science, or art, or as to identity of handwriting [or finger impressions], the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, [or in questions as to identity of handwriting] [or finger impressions ]are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts. It is expected from an expert that his opinion must be firm and should not be vague, bald or evasive or dependent upon the contingencies. The injuries should be opined to be simple or grievous in nature. The phrase used by the doctor that the "injuries might be life threatening if not treated on time" is not an opinion given by an expert doctor serving in Community Health Center. Such type of opinion can be given by any rustic villager or an illiterate person. Why the opinion is sought from the doctor, if can't give a definite opinion. There is no opinion on record that the said injury was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. The crux of the provision contained under of the Indian Evidence Act is that whenever a Court of law that feels it should seek an opinion on the aforementioned point, then it is expected that it would seek opinion from a person, who is specially skilled in such law, science or art etc. It means that ultimately, the opinion of the expert is sought only for the assistance of the Court and thus, it can be said that the Court is the expert of the experts. Whenever, an opinion is sought regarding the nature of injuries; it must be given by a specifically skilled person so as to bring him in the definition of "expert" on that particular point. It must not be fallacious or fallible as the same may instead of assisting the Court, mislead or confuse the Court. Thus in my view, the opinion should be firm and definite and only in that situation the same is admissible in evidence under of the Evidence Act. It must not be fallacious or fallible as the same may instead of assisting the Court, mislead or confuse the Court. Thus in my view, the opinion should be firm and definite and only in that situation the same is admissible in evidence under of the Evidence Act. The vague, bald, probable, infirm or uncertain opinion is not an opinion of an expert, therefore, the second opinion given by the doctor dated 07.07.2022 is in no manner can be taken as a report submitted by an expert rather a cloud of doubt arises as to what was the occasion for the Investigating Officer to seek or for the doctor to give the opinion without examining the victim injured or without examining his medical documents.''