The essential ingredients of the offense of attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC are: (i) death of a human being was attempted to be caused by or in consequence of the act of the accused; (ii) such act was done by the accused with the intention of causing death or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the accused knew to be likely to cause death or was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or that by doing such an act as the accused knew to be so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.

P. K. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner faced trial along with three others under Sections 325/307 read with Section 34, I. P. C, in S. T. No. 6/69 of 1989 is the Court of the Asst. Sessions Judge, Udala. The trial Court while acquitting the three co-accused persons, convicted the petitioner under Section 307, I. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo R. I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo R. I. for six months. In appeal, while maintaining the order of conviction the appellate Court has reduced the sentence to R. I. for three years and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo R. I. for six months. The aforesaid order of conviction and sentence is under challenge in this revision.

( 2 ) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that on 26-1-89 at about 6. 30 p. m. all the accused persons came in a body and abused the informant (P. W. 1) in filthy language and when P. W. 4 tried to pacify them, the petitioner brought a knife and stabbed P. W. 4 on his abdomen. It is further alleged that the other accused persons assaulted P. W. 4 with Panikhi and Iron Pipe etc.

( 3 ) THE plea of the accused persons was one of denial.

( 4 ) THE prosecution in order to establish its case has examined ten witnesses including the injured who was examined as P. W. 4. The trial Court on consideration of evidence came to the conclusion that the evidence was insufficient to prove the charge against the other three accused persons and acquitted them of all the charges. However, it convicted the petitioner under Section 307, I. P. C. on a finding that he had given a blow with knife on the belly of P. W. 4. As already indicated, the appellate Court confirmed the finding of guilt but reduced the sentence.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has challenged the order of conviction on several grounds. He has contended that though the injured was examined by the doctor at about 7 p. m. , the F. I. R. was lodged at 8 p. m. on 26-1-89, and there is development in the prosecution case from stage to stage. He has further submitted that some of the persons named as witnesses in the F. I. R. have been withheld without any reason and persons who were not named in the F. I. R. have been examined as witnesses and there is variance between ocular evidence and the evidence of the doctor. It is also contended that on the self-same evidence the three other accused persons have been acquitted and the order of conviction relying upon the same witnesses is not sustainable. The learned Counsel has also submitted chat even assuming that the petitioner had assaulted P. W. 4 with a knife, it cannot be said that as offence under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, has been made out.

( 6 ) THE contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner excepting the last one do not merit serious consideration. Both the courts below on detailed examination of the materials on record have accepted the prosecution story so far as the assault by the petitioner on P. W. 4 is concerned. The discrepancies in the F. I. R. story and the statements made before the police and the prosecution case as unfolded at the stage of trial are not serious enough to discredit the evidence of eye-witnesses including the injured. Minor discrepancies in the evidence here and there cannot be a ground to discard the entire prosecution case. The findings of the courts below are based on discussion of evidence and in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, I am not persuaded to take a different view of the matter so far as assault on P. W. 4 by the petitioner is concerned.

( 7 ) THE question, however, remains as to whether it can be said beyond all reasonable doubt that an offence under Section 307, I. P. C. , has been made out. In order to bring home the charge under S. 307, the prosecution has to establish the followings :- (I) death of human being was attempted to be caused by or in consequence of the act of the accused; (II) such act was done by the accused with intention of c