Ram Prasanna Sharma, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.4.2009 passed by Ninth Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Durg (CG) in Session Trial No.184/2008 wherein the said Court convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Sections 307, 506 Part -II and 294 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of 1000/-; RI for two years and to pay fine of R.500/-, RI for one month and to pay fine of Rs.200/- with default stipulations with a direction to run the sentences concurrently.

2. In the present case, name of the victim is Netram Janghel @ Tilli (PW-1). As per the version of the prosecution, on 13.6.2008 at about 8.00 pm the victim had gone to Limha Talab situated at village Kohka where the appellant came and after abusing and threatened him to kill, caused stab injury on his left side of abdomen by knife. The victim was admitted in the hospital where the injuries were found to be threatening to life. The matter was reported and investigated, the appellant was charge sheeted and convicted as mentioned above.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits as under :

(i) Witnesses of the incident did not lodge any report on the date of incident and dehati nalishi (Ex-P/1) was recorded on the next day of the incident i.e. 14.6.2008 and the delay in lodging the report is not explained by the prosecution.

(ii) Statement of the victim is contrary to dehati nalishi (Ex-P/1) and he has stated about the use of weapon as kukhari whereas in Ex-P/1 use of weapon is mentioned as bhujali. But these facts were ignored by the trial Court.

(iii) Witnesses of the memorandum statements have not supported the discovery statement of the appellant and the trial Court did not scrutinies the version of other witnesses. Therefore, finding of the trial Court is not sustainable.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supporting the impugned judgment 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. Victim Netram (PW-1) deposed before the trial Court that at the time of the incident, he was sitting on his motor cycle near the tank and at that time the appellant reached there, used abusive language against him and assaulted on his abdomen by kukhari (one iron made weapon of sharp edge). Version of this witness is supported by the version of Karthik Ram (PW-2) Rajesh Hindariya (PW-3), Mohan Verma (PW-4) and Deen Dayal (PW-5) to whom the incident was informed and thereafter the victim was shifted to the hospital. Dr. S.K. Thakur (PW-9) conducted examination of the victim on 14.6.2008 in the hospital at Sector 9 Bhilai who noticed following injuries on the body of the victim.

(1) stab wound on the left lower abdomen of 5cm x 2cm

(2) stab injury on the right side 6 cm above the hip bone of 1 cm.

Dr. K.H. Ramesh (PW-12), the expert of Surgical Section, who after examination of the stab injury caused on the abdomen which resulted into injury on the intestine opined that the injuries were threatening to life. Knife was seized from the appellant during investigation and the same was brought before the medical expert who examined the said knife and opined that the injuries caused to the victim may be caused by the said weapon.

6. Now the point for determination is whether the act committed by the appellant constitute offence under Section 307 IPC.

7. An attempt is an intended, but unfinished crime, tending but failing to effect its commission. Specific intention to commit the crime of murder is a necessary prerequisite of this section. In so far as the offence relates to an attempt, the overt act must necessarily be left unaccomplished because otherwise the prosecution would be for the completed crime. Apart from the necessary mens rea, actus reus must be more than a preliminary preparation. The attempt must have gone so far