1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 01-02-1997 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur in Sessions Trial No.332/1993. By the impugned judgment, accused/appellant Thakur Ram has been convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. Co-accused Awadhram and Chheduram have been acquitted of the charge framed against them.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under:

On 20-03-1993, at about 10 A.M., complainant Vishwanath (PW-3) was going to his shop on his bicycle. Appellant Thakur Ram met him on the way, caught handle of the bicycle and gave a knife blow on his abdomen. Complainant Vishwanath (PW-3) sustained injury in his abdomen and due to injury he fell down from the bicycle. Pancho Bai (PW-4) who is the wife of complainant Vishwanath (PW-3) witnessed the incident. At that time she was sitting in betel shop. Co-accused Awadhram and Chheduram came near complainant Vishwanath (PW-3) running and they also caught the neck of complainant Vishwanath (PW-3). When Pancho Bai (PW-4) reached the place of occurrence, the appellant and other co-accused persons fled from there. Complainant Vishwanath (PW-3) was taken to Primary Health Centre (PHC), Bhatapara. Dr. P. Mukundan (PW-1) examined Vishwanath (PW-3) and gave his report (Ex.P-2). Dr. P. Mukundan (PW-1) also sent an information to Police Station Bhatapara (Gram in) vide (Ex.P-1). Head Constable Jamuna Singh, on the basis of(Ex.P-1), recorded rojnamcha sanha 583 and thereafter Station House Officer R.O. Singh (PW-7) recorded First Information Report (FIR) (Ex.P-8) in Police Station Bhatapara (Gramin). Thereafter, Station House Officer R.O. Singh (PW-7) reached Primary Health Centre, Bhatapara (Gramin). Dr. P. Mukundan (PW-1) gave his report (Ex.P.-2), in which, he found incised wound of 3.5 cm x 1.5 cm below the left side of the chest and blood was oozing out from the injury. He opined that the injury was grievous in nature and caused by hard and sharp object. Injured Vishwanath (PW-3) was referred to D.K..S. Hospital, Raipur for further treatment.

In further investigation, memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act vide (Ex.P-11) and at his instance, one knife (Chaku) was seized vide (Ex.P.-12). Blood stained soil and plain soil were seized from the place of occurrence vide (Ex.P-10).

After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and acquitted co-accused persons in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baloda Bazar, who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Session, Raipur, from where, it was received on transfer by Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur, who conducted the trial and convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above and acquitted co-accused Awadhram and Chheduram.

3. Shri M.D. Dhote and Shri B.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant argued that there is no independent witness. Pancho Bai (PW-4) is the wife of Complainant Vishwanath (PW-3). She is a relative and interested witness. The evidence of Complainant Vishwanath (PW-3) is full of contradictions and same is not corroborated by any independent witness. Independent witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution, therefore, the evidence of Complainant Vishwanath (PW-3) and Pancho Bai (PW-4) are not cogent and reliable. Hence, the conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the appellant deserves to be acquitted.

4. On the contrary, Shri Anant Bajpai, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent, supporting the impugned judgment, submitted that the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant do not warrant any interference by this Court.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have a