C.V. BHADANG, J.

This is an appeal challenging the acquittal of the respondent from the offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short).

2. The prosecution case shorn of minor details may be stated thus :-

That on 30.09.2007, between 7:30 p.m. to 7:45 p.m., in the Gymnasium of the victim at Usagao, Tisk, Ponda, the respondent assaulted the victim, Utkarsh Parsekar on his head with the help of an iron bar with an intention to kill him. According to the prosecution, the victim had borrowed an amount of Rs.12,000/-, which the victim refused to pay and on account of the said dispute, it is claimed that the incident happened. Undisputedly, after the assault, the appellant surrendered himself before P.S. Ponda.

3. The matter was investigated in which, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the witnesses, effected certain seizures. The victim, Utkarsh was admitted in the Goa Medical College & Hospital (GMC) for medical treatment. The statement of witnesses came to be recorded on 06.03.2008. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Ponda, which was committed to the Court of Sessions and was registered as Sessions Case No. 1/2008 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge at Panaji.

4. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, to which, the respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence was of total denial and false implication.

5. At the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 28 witnesses and produced the record of investigation. In response to the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, the respondent filed a written statement (Exhibit-125). It is the specific defence that prior to the incident, the respondent had already left the Gymnasium and had gone to the market to purchase fish. It is contended that after keeping the same at home, the respondent returned back to the Gymnasium at about 7:45 p.m. and saw Utkarsh Parsekar (PW-9), lying on the ground in a bleeding condition. The respondent tried to contact the Ponda P.S., when he was called to the police station. He went there and informed about the incident, where he was detained. The respondent claimed that he never gave loan of Rs.12,000/- to Utkarsh Parsekar and such a story was cooked up to show some false motive. He claimed that the victim was in fact his friend and he had stood as security for the victim in a criminal case pending before the learned Magistrate at Ponda, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He claimed that the victim was facing several such cases as he owed money to several persons.

6. The respondent did not lead any evidence in defence.

7. The learned Sessions Judge framed a solitary point as to whether, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that the respondent assaulted the victim in the Gymnasium with an iron bar with an intention to kill him. The learned Sessions Judge on appreciation of the evidence, answered the point in the negative and proceeded to acquit the respondent giving him benefit of doubt. Feeling aggrieved the State is before this Court.

8. We have heard Shri Rivankar, the learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant and Shri Lotlikar, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, we have gone through the evidence and record as well as the impugned judgment.

9. It is submitted by Shri Rivankar, the learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant that the appreciation of evidence by the learned Sessions Judge and particularly that of PW-9 and the confessional statement by the respondent, is perverse. It is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge ought to have relied upon the evidence of PW-9 as the same is consistent and stands corroborated on material, notwithstanding the fact that in the interregnum, during the period of treatment, the m