JUDGMENT

T.K. Kaushal, J.—This appeal has been preferred by accused/appellant against judgment dated 27.6.1996 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Panna in S.T. No. 4/96 convicting the appellant under section 307 of IPC for attempting on life of Ramkishan (PW3) by setting him to fire and sentenced to 5 years R.I. and with fine of Rs.1,000, in default, further R.I. for 3 months.

2. Initially this appeal was preferred by two appellants. Pending this appeal co-appellant Malkhan expired. Vide order dated 18.10.2011 this appeal has been dismissed against him as abated.

3. Facts of the case, in short, are that on 16.10.1995 at about 7.00- 8.00 p.m. following a dispute of loss and damage caused to the crops by cattles, appellant and 3 others i.e. Malkhan, Bacchu and Piri came on the house of Ramkishan (PW3) and caught hold of him, poured kerosene and set him ablazed. Ramkishan (PW3) suffered 50% burn injury. Ramkishan (PW3) reached to the Government hospital and narrated the incident to Dr. P.N. Sharma (PW7) who informed the incident to police Dharampur District Panna.

4. On 19.10.1995 a case at Crime No. 42/1995 under Section 307/34 of IPC was registered against appellant and 3 others. Completing the investigation, citing, 18 witnesses police Dharampur submitted a charge-sheet against appellant and others under Section 307/34 of IPC. Trial Court framed charges under Section 307 in alternative under Section 307/34 of IPC on the appellant and others. Accused person abjured guilt.

5. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, statements of Badi Bahu (PW1), Ramcharan, brother of injured (PW2), Ramkishan, injured (PW3), Chunni Bai W/o injured (PW4), Rudra Prasad Tripathi, Head Constable (PW5), Dr. H.N. Sharma (PW6), Dr. P.N. Sharma (PW7), Dr. L.K. Tiwari (PW8), Babbu (PW9) and Shri R.S. Sengar, Station House Officer (PW10) were recorded.

6. Defence of the accused person and trial was that of false implication on account of enmity. To support the aforesaid defence statements of Maharaj Singh DWl and Chhotelal Mishra DW2 were recorded.

7. Appreciating the aforesaid evidence Trial Court acquitted the accused persons Bacchu and Piri, however, convicted the appellant and another co-accused Malkhan as above. This appeal has been preferred on the grounds that appreciation of evidence is not proper. On the basis of same set of evidence Trial Court has extended benefit of doubt to co- accused persons and as a result of illegal and arbitrary approach of the Trial Court appellant has been convicted. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate supported the findings of conviction and sentence given by the Trial Court.

8. Dr. P.N. Sharma (PW7) stated that on 16.10.1995 at about 2.10 p.m. Ramkishan (PW3) was brought to the hospital in burnt condition. He found burn marks on his hair and on his forehead with blisters. His face including eyes and eyebrows were found in burnt condition. There had been blister on his chest and under his armpits and on his forearms. Nature of injuries was grievous. PW7 prepared report Ex. P6. He found more than 50% burnt on his body. PW7 admitted that such fire can be caused by accident also.

9. Dr. H. N. Sharma (PW6) stated that Ramkishan (PW3) was admitted in the hospital on 17.10.1995 for treatment of burn injury and was discharged on 4.12.1995. Certificate of discharge is Ex. P5. Dr. L. K. Tiwari (PW8) stated that on 20.10.95 he examined the patient Ramkishan (PW3) and prepared report Ex. P7.

10. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that in view of the medical evidence there is no material to show that burn injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. In view of the medical evidence and further in view of the fact that appellant remained admitted in hospital for treatment for more than a period of 20 days, burn injuries were proved to be grievous. There is no evidence on record to show that burn injuries were sufficient to cause a death in ordinary course of nature.

11. Ram