The main legal point established in the judgment is that the intention and knowledge of the accused, the nature of injuries sustained by the victim, and the circumstances of the incident are crucial in determining the offense of attempt to commit murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The court emphasized that the consequence or nature of injury is immaterial, and that the intention and knowledge of the assailant must be inferred from the totality of circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present appeal has been filed by the convicted accused against the judgment of Sessions Court in Sessions Case No.51/2018 dated 16.11.2019, whereby the appellant/accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.30,000/- with default clause.

2. The incident giving rise to the present appeal took place around 9.30 a.m., on 12.05.2018 near village temple. The informant Pradeep is the younger brother of the appellant/accused Ajit. There happen to be a land dispute in between two real brothers since long. On the date of incident, the informant went to his cattle shed and found that it was locked by somebody. The informant called the Village Sarpanch and some other persons. In their presence, the Village Panchas broke open the lock and handed over possession of the cattle shed to the informant. Thereafter around 9.30 a.m., the informant Pradeep went to the village temple of God Rama, and seated there. At that time, the appellant / accused Ajit arrived and started to beat the informant by fist blows and slaps. In the said quarrel the informant fell down on which the appellant took out a knife from pocket of his trousers and dealt blows on stomach, back and hand of the informant. In said assault, the informant sustained bleeding injury, hence, initially he was shifted by villagers to Government Hospital at Buldhana, and then as per the medical advise was shifted to Dhoot Hospital at Aurangabad. On the following day the concerned police of Amdapur Police Station went to Dhoot Hospital at Aurangabad and recorded statement of injured informant Pradeep. After returning to Amdapur, the police registered crime vide C.R.No. 125/2018, for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The police investigated the matter. The panchnama of the scene of offence was drawn in which simple and blood mixed earth and blade of knife lying at the place of occurrence was seized. Statement of necessary witnesses were recorded. On completion of the investigation, final report came to be filed. The accused denied the charges by claiming innocence. The prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses to establish the guilt. The prosecution also banks upon certain documents including the injury certificate, medical case papers, C.A. report etc. The Trial Court believed the evidence of injured Pradeep which was corroborated by the medical evidence. On that basis, the trial Court delivered judgment and order of conviction as mentioned above.

4. Heard Shri Abdul Subhan, learned Counsel for the appellant / accused and Ms. M. Deshmukh, A.P.P. for respondent State.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant has made two fold submissions. The first submission is that the evidence on record is too sketchy and unsafe to draw the inference of the guilt. The trial Court manifestly erred in recording judgment of conviction solely on the basis of the evidence of the informant. The trial Court failed to appreciate that all the eye witnesses turned hostile, meaning thereby the informants’ evidence was uncorroborated. In the alternative, it is submitted that the prosecution has not established the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, and at the most the accused can be convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The second submission is based on the premise of nature of injuries sustained by the informant. It is argued that, this being a family matter, the victim can be released on undergone punishment by imposing certain additional fine towards compensation.

6. Per contra, the learned A.P.P. has supported the judgment and order of conviction. It is her submission that the evidence of injured inspires full confidence and therefore, conviction can be safely based on his evidence. The medical evidence supports the informants unimpeached testimony. There was adequate motive