In absence of established intention or knowledge to murder, conviction under Section 307 IPC is unsustainable and alterable to Section 324 IPC.

The appellant was convicted by the trial court under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced to seven years R.I. for an incident occurring on April 26, 2006.

The prosecution alleged that due to a land dispute, the appellant struck his cousin (the informant's son) on the neck with a farsa (sharp-edged weapon).

Medical evidence showed a sharp-cut wound (3” X 1 ½”) on the neck, but X-rays confirmed no bony injuries.

The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing the injury was simple in nature, lacked repeated blows, and did not meet the threshold of "attempt to murder".

1. Whether the act of the appellant, causing a single blow without bony injury, constitutes an "attempt to murder" under Section 307 of the IPC or a lesser offense of voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons under Section 324 of the IPC.

2. Whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, given his status as a first-time offender and the lapse of two decades since the occurrence.

Section 307 of the IPC (Attempt to Murder) and Section 324 of the IPC (Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons).

Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh & Others (1988) 4 SCC 551, which establishes that for a Section 307 conviction, the court must determine if the act was done with the specific intention or knowledge necessary to constitute murder, gathered from circumstances like the nature of the weapon, the severity of the blow, and the part of the body injured.

Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, regarding the release of offenders on probation of good conduct.

The Court observed that while the neck is a vital part of the body, the medical report specifically noted "no any bony injury," suggesting the blow was not delivered with "mighty force".

Applying the Hari Singh standard, the Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the requisite intention or knowledge to commit murder, as the injury did not reflect an attempt to kill.

The offense was scaled down from Section 307 to Section 324 of the IPC.

The Court noted the trial court failed to provide special reasons for refusing probation despite the appellant being a first-time offender.

Given that twenty years had passed since the incident and considering the appellant's character, the Court deemed him fit for rehabilitation.

The substantive sentence of seven years R.I. was modified; the appellant was ordered to be released on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- for maintaining peace and good behavior for one year under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

Failure to furnish the bond or violation of its terms would result in the revival of the original sentence.