The court clarified that the offense of attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC requires injuries that are life-threatening, and in the absence of such evidence, the appropriate offense would be under Section 326 IPC.

P.N. Goel, J.

1. RAM Surat, appellant, aged about 60 years has been convicted and sentenced under section'307 IPC to undergo RI for 7 years for having assaulted RAM Lakhan, PW 1 of his village Kewari Police Station Kaptanganj, district Basti with a spear (Bhala) on 17-9-1972 at about 8 A. M.

2. THE report of the occurrence was lodged verbally by Sarju, PW 2, at the police station at 2.45 P. M. Ram Lakhan Misra, S. I., PW 5, entered upon investigation.

Dr. U. R. Gupta, examined Ram Lahkan, injured on the date of occurrence at 5.15 P. M. Following injuries were found on his person :-

3. ON 18-9-1972 Dr. S. C. Chaturvedi X' rayed injuries 1 and 2 of Ram Lakhan in the district hospital. He found fracture of the jaw bone and dislocation of the jaw.

4. THE appellant did not admit to have assaulted Ram Lakhan. He asserted that Ram Lakhan had got his possession recorded on his field, that Ram Lakhan wanted to take that field in consolidation, that he did not agree, that therefore. Ram Lakhan was hostile to him and [had falsely implicated him in this case.

On fact the prosecution examined Ram Lakhan, Sarju and Jome, PWs 1, 2 and 4. No witness was examined in defence. Ram Lakhan stated that on the date and time of occurrence he was gping from his house to scrap grass, that when he reached in a grove to the west of his village abadi, Ram Surat came up with a Barchha and gave a blow at his jaw, on account of which he fell down, that he raised alarm, that the appellant gave another Barchha blow at his jaw, that he also caused injury with the buttend of the barchha at. his eye saying "Aur Meri Janani Se Bolo".

5. SARJU and Jome corroborated the testimony of Ram Lakhan in respect of assault on him by the appellant with a spear.

6. ON a consideration of the entire material on record, the First Additional Sessions Judge, Basti, convicted the appellant as said above. He did not place reliance on the testimony of Sarju.

Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and record has been gone through with their assistance.

7. THE appellant's counsel urged that there was no reason for Ram Surat, appellant to have assaulted Ram Lakhan as alleged and that he had been falsely implicated on account of enmity.

8. A perusal of the statement of Sarju and Jome, PWs 2 and 4 indicates that these two witnesses had not seen the assault in question. Sarju was working at his house. Wife of Jome told him that Ram Surat was assaulting Ram Lakhan with a ballam. Thereupon he went towards grove Khalihan in which Ram Lakhan was assaulted. Hence it is obvious that he could not have seen the actual assault. He further stated that Jomai and Somai had also reached there and that he along with Jomai and Somai ran after the appellant. Statement of Jomai shows that he alone ran after the appellant in these circumstances, it is apparent that Sarju had not seen the Assault and that he reached the place of occurrence after the assailant had bolted away. As stated above the learned trial judge did not place reliance on his testimony.

With regard to Jome, his testimony is assailed on 3 grounds- (i) He stated in the court of the trial Judge that he was coming from the eastern side i.e. from the side of his field and therefore, reached in the grove of occurrence. In his statement under section 161 CrPC he stated that he was going from his village towards east. (ii) He did not go with the injured, Ram Lakhan to the police station. In cross-examination he stated that he ran after Ram Surat, appellant upto 20 bighas and then he went away to his house., He did not return to the injured in the grove. (iii) He could not even see on which part of the body Ram Lakhan was injured with the ballam. These facts clearly go to show that he had not seen the occurrence.

9. IN view of the above there remains the solitary evidence of Ram Lakhan, injured. His cross-examination does not indicate that the occurrence took place in the dark. His statement that he was assaulted at about 8 A. M. ha