Ram Prasanna Sharma, J.

1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 28.12.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Balod, District Durg (CG) in Session Trial No. 26 of 2010 wherein the said Court has convicted the appellant for the commission of offence under Sections 307 and 452 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and RI for six years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulations. Both sentences are directed to run concurrently.

2. In the present case, name of the victim is Kumari Chandrika (PW-1). As per version of the prosecution on 2.6.2010 at about 9.00 a.m. appellant entered into the house of the prosecutrix Kumari Chandrika and said for doing the marriage. When she refused the appellant attacked her by knife due to which she was badly injured. The matter was reported and investigated and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed, the appellant did not plead guilty and the trial was conducted. After completion of trial, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit as under:

(i) Appellant and complainant had love affair, therefore, it is not possible to attack on prosecutrix. Knife which was seized by the prosecution is not connecting piece of evidence.

(ii) The trial court has not evaluated the evidence in its true perspective, therefore, offence under Section 307 of IPC is not established. Independent witnesses have not supported the version of prosecution.

(iii) All the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses, therefore, they are not reliable.

(iv) Due to provocation of the victim namely Chandrika Gaikward (PW-1), the incident took place, therefore, no offence is made out against the present appellant.

(v) The medical Dr. Smt. S. Cladius (PW-3) has not mentioned that the injuries were sufficient to cause death, therefore, charge under Section 307 of the IPC is not established.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the finding of the trial Court is based on proper marshaling of the evidence and the same is not liable to be interfered while invoking the jurisdiction of the appeal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the court below in which impugned judgment is passed.

6. PW-1 prosecutrix deposed that on the date of incident at about 9.00 a.m. she was talking to her sister in mobile phone and at the same time appellant came there and attacked her stating that she is not maintaining relation with him and threatened her to kill. She moved inside the house and narrated the incident to her mother and brother and at the same time appellant assaulted her by knife on abdomen and thereafter assaulted on her throat and left hand. Her mother and brother intervened into the matter and tried to catch the appellant, but anyhow he managed to flee away by crossing the wall of the house. Version of this witness is supported by version of PW-2 Jagotin Bai. PW-4 Basant Kumar and PW-6 Chiman Lal. All these witnesses have been subjected to searching cross examination, but nothing could be elicited in favour of the defence. Direct evidence adduced by the prosecution is again supported by version of Dr. Smt. S. Cladius who examined the prosecutrix on 2.6.2010 at 9.50 am and noticed the following injuries as per Ex.P/7.

(i) Incised wound in the size of 1cm x 3 cm x 3 cm in front of neck.

(ii) Incised wound in the size of 2 cm x 1 cm depth over epigastrial area.

(iii) Two incised wounds in the size of 3 cm x 2 cm x2 cm over right index finger

As per version of this witness, there was excessive bleeding from the body of the prosecutrix that is why blood was transfused in her body, otherwise, she would succumbed to the injuries.

7. Now the point for consideration of this court is whether the act of the appellant falls within Section 307 of IPC.

8. To constitute an offence under Section 307 of IPC, two ingr