S. Serto, J.

This is a jail appeal directed against the Judgment dated 29.06.2016 and the sentence Order dated 01.07.2006 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl in Sessions Case No. 77 of 213 convicting the appellant under Section 307 & 324 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and on default, to undergo simple imprisonment for another period of 10 days for the offence under Section 307 IPC and also sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - and on default, to undergo another period of 5 days simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 324 of IPC.

2. Heard the learned Amicus Curiae Mr. F. Lalengliana appearing on behalf of the appellant. Also heard Mr. A.K. Rokhum, learned Public Prosecutor, Mizoram appearing for the State of Mizoram.

3. The learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant submits as follows :

That the conviction was based on circumstantial evidence as there was no eyewitness to the incident. He drew the Court's attention to the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses and he submitted that none of the witnesses said that they saw the accused cutting the throat of the victim and stabbing him on his belly. That there is no exact measurement of the wound suffered by the victim, the doctor who examined him only stated that the injuries were grievous. That the knife which is alleged to be the crime weapon is only 10 inches long on the sharp portion and 5 inches long on the handle side, therefore, by any imagination, it cannot be a weapon which can be used to kill a person. That the incident was due to a sudden quarrel which was caused by some misunderstanding at the spot. He cited the evidence given by the only defence witness who stated that he saw them having a quarrel and by that time the accused Samsul did not have a knife or weapon but the other party was having a dao and a knife. Then, he saw the accused trying to snatch the dao and the knife from the victim and because of that the victim might have been injured. That the evidence lacks ingredients of Section 307 IPC. To prove an offence under Section 307, the facts and circumstances of the case must show that there was intention or motive on the part of the accused to caused the death of the victim but from the facts and circumstances of the case as stated by the witness, there was nothing to show that the accused had such intention or motive. In support of his submission, the learned Amicus Curiae cited the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh, reported in 1988 (4) SCC 551 particularly para 7 of the same which is as follows :

"7. On the first question as to acquittal of the accused under Section 307/149 IPC, some significant aspects may be borne in mind. Under Section 307 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 that section. 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. 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 it, determine the intention.

In this case, two parties in the course of a fight inflicted on each other injuries both serious and minor. The accused though armed with ballam never used the sharp edge of it. They