1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 5.3.1997 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Raipur in Sessions Trial No. 415/ 1996 convicting the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for five years and pay fine of Rs. 1000, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for three months.

2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 22.6.1996 FIR Ex. P-1 was lodged by injured Surendra Bairagi (PW-1) mentioning that he and Jitendra Bairagi (PW-2) are the real brothers and that there existed some dispute regarding a house between his family and that of the accused/appellant for which the matter was pending before the Rent Controlling Authority. It is alleged that on the date of incident when the accused/appellant was arranging tiles on the rooftop of his house, he and Jitendra Bairagi asked him not to do so and on account of that there was some altercation between the parties. Thereafter, it is alleged that the accused/appellant caused stab injury first to Jitendra Bairagi (PW-2) and then to him. Based on this report, offence under Section 307 IPC was registered against the accused/appellant. Surendra Bairagi (PW-l) was medically examined vide Ex. P-6 whereas Jitendra Bairagi (PW-2) vide Ex.P-7 on that day itself. After investigation, charge sheet was filed on 1.10.1996 for the said offence and then the Court below also framed the charge accordingly.

3. In support of its case the prosecution has examined 14 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charge levelled against him pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case.

4. After hearing the parties, the Court below has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in paragraph No.1 of the judgment.

5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. Counsel for the appellant submits that even if the entire case of the prosecution is taken as it is, offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out and at the most the act of the accused/appellant would fall under Section 326 IPC. He submits that in the medical report the doctor examining the victims has not stated that the injury suffered by them was grievous and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and that being so the conviction under Section 307 IPC is bad. He submits that the appellant has already remained in jail for about six months, that the incident took place about 16 years back and therefore the sentence imposed on him may be reduced to the period already undergone if at all the conviction part of the judgment impugned is going to be left undisturbed. In support of his submission, counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Neelam Bahal and another Vs. State of Uttrakhand (2010) 2 SCC 229.

7. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent/State supports the judgment impugned and submits that the findings recorded by the Court below are based on due appreciation of the evidence of the witnesses and therefore no interference with the same is called for. He however does not dispute that there is no documentary evidence on record to show that the injuries sustained by the victims were grievous or sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

8. Surendra Bairagi (PW-1) has stated that he was living in the house in question with his younger brother Jitendra Bairagi (PW-2) whereas the accused/appellant was his tenant. He has stated that on the date of incident when the appellant was arranging tiles on the rooftop of his house, his brother Jitendra Bairagi objected to the same saying that as the matter was pending before the Rent Controlling Authority, no such repair work could be made. Then according to this witness, the accused/appellant got down, abused his brother, brought a knife from his house and