The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of ascertaining the accused's intention or knowledge based on various factors, including the motive, weapon used, and nature of the injuries, in determining the applicable offense under the Indian Penal Code.

JUDGMENT :

1. In this criminal revision application, challenge is to the judgment and order dated 03.08.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant/accused against his conviction and sentence awarded by learned Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagpur for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The facts giving rise to this revision application are as follows:-

The incident in question occurred on 06.03.2011 at about 6.00 p.m. Nadim Ahmad (PW-1) injured is the informant. It is the case of the prosecution that when informant (PW-1) on 06.03.2011 at about 6.00 p.m. was washing his hands and face in front of his house, the accused who is resident of the same locality and known to the informant, came to his house and made a demand of Rs.100/- for consuming liquor. The informant did not have money and therefore, as he could not pay. He refused to pay the money. The accused got annoyed. The accused abused the informant. The accused came from behind the informant and inflicted a blow with sharp razor (Vastara) on the throat of the informant. The informant sustained bleeding injury. The accused further inflicted a blow with the weapon on his waist. After seeing the incident, people gathered on the spot. They apprehended the accused and assaulted him. The informant thereafter went to the police station and reported the matter to the police. The police referred the informant to Government Hospital for medical examination. The informant was examined by Dr. Suryakant Lodhe, Medical Officer (PW-10). On the basis of the report, crime bearing No.53/2011 was registered against the accused for an offence punishable under Section 307 of the I.P.C. The accused was immediately arrested. The weapon was recovered from his custody. The Investigating Officer after completion of the investigation filed the charge sheet against the accused.

3. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses to bring home the guilt against the accused. Learned Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge on consideration of the evidence held the accused guilty under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer the rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The accused preferred appeal in the Sessions Court. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on consideration of the evidence confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge and dismissed the appeal. The applicant/accused therefore, has, come before this Court in revision.

4. I have heard Shri V. Mate, learned Advocate for the applicant/accused and Shri Amit Chutke, learned APP for the respondent/ State. Perused the record and proceedings.

5. Learned Advocate for the accused submitted that there are major inconsistencies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and therefore, the evidence of the witnesses about the incident is unbelievable. Learned Advocate pointed out from the evidence of informant that at the time of lodging of report, he had stated that weapon used was knife. Learned Advocate further pointed out that weapon produced in the Court is the razor (Vastara). Learned Advocate submitted that this is a major contradiction in his evidence. Learned Advocate further submitted that the other witnesses are the interested witnesses and therefore, the reliance can not be placed on their evidence.

6. Learned Advocate for the accused without prejudice to the above submitted that evidence on record and particularly the evidence of the medical officer even if accepted as it is, the offence made out by the prosecution would be under Section 324 of the I.P.C. Learned Advocate submitted that medical officer (PW-10) has categorically stated that the injury on the throat was a simple injury. Learned Advocate further pointed out that for the treatment o