4. (h) Coming to the quantum of sentence, the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months by the court below. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused alternatively contended that PW1 suppressed in his cross examination, the fact that some amount is due by him to the accused, though he had stated in his examination in chief that at the time of the alleged attack, the accused had uttered the words that as to when PW1 would pay the amount of Rs.1,70,000/- to him and that, therefore, from the evidence on record it appears that for non payment of the amount by PW1 to the accused, he (the accused) was compelled to sell his properties to pay the wages to the labourers working under him and hence, the accused was emotionally upset and that on account of an emotional outburst he might have attacked PW1 and that there is neither intention nor wilful conduct in attacking the accused and that even PW1 had stated that there are no prior disputes and that therefore, the court below also found that the ingredients of Section 307 of the IPC are not attracted. He would further submit that the accused was a labourer aged 32 years at the time of the alleged offence and that he is having wife and children who are depending upon him and that if he is sentenced to a long term of imprisonment, not only his future but also the future of his family members would be ruined and that therefore, a lenient view may be taken and the sentence may be reduced to one already undergone. When the accused was examined on the measure of sentence before the trial court, he had stated that he has a wife and two children and they are
