Sharad Kumar Gupta, J.

1. In this criminal appeal, challenge is levied to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.5.2001 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Jashpur Nagar, CG in Sessions Trial No. 194/1999 whereby and whereunder he convicted the appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years with a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 2 months.

2. In brief, prosecution case is that complainant Gunjibai is the mother-in-law of appellant. On 9.11.1999 at about 12.00 pm she had gone to see her grand son Butru to the house of the appellant. In front of the door of his house, he caused injuries on her head, below left eye and back by blunt side of an axe. The complainant lodged a report on very day at 16.00 hour which was written in Rojnamcha Sanha. After the inquiry, an FIR was lodged on 14.11.1999 at police station Bageecha. After completion of investigation a charge sheet was filed against him under Section 307 of the IPC. The trial Court framed charge against him under Section 307 of the IPC. He abjured the charge levelled against him and faced trial. To bring home the charge against him, prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. The appellant also examined one witness in his defence. After conclusion of the trial, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid.

3. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this criminal appeal.

4. Counsel for appellant submits that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. Doctor had not given opinion that alleged injuries were sufficient to cause death. The prosecution failed to prove that there was intention to kill the complainant. Thus, the conviction and sentence of the appellant are bad in eyes of law. Hence, he may be acquitted of the aforesaid charge. In alternate, she submits that even if the prosecution case is accepted as it is, even then, at the most the appellant may be convicted for offence under Section 325, IPC.

5. The Panel Lawyer appearing for the State argued that the aforesaid conviction and sentence are based on the sufficient evidence available on record. Thus no interference is called for.

6. As per alleged MLC report Ex. P-3, PW-3 Dr. Christ Dular Bakhla had examined said complainant and found following injuries on her person:-

(1) One lacerated wound 2.5 cm x 2.5 cm on left zygomatic region, congestion was present on left eye.

(2) One lacerated wound size 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm on right frontal region.

(3) One lacerated wound size 3.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 1 cm on left end of parietal region.

(4) Swelling on the left side of below the back of scapula.

7. There is no such evidence on record on strength of which it can be said that Ex. P-3 is not believable. Thus this Court believes on Ex. P-3.

8. As per the alleged X-ray report Ex. P-12, PW-10 Dr. S. Singh after examination of the X-ray plates of skull and left cheek zygomatic region of said complainant, opined that there was fracture on left parietal bone.

9. There is no such evidence on record on strength of which it can be said that Ex. P-12, alleged X-ray plates Ex. P-13, Ex. P-14, Ex. P15 are not believable. Thus this Court believes on them.

10. PW-4 Gunjibai Nagesia says in para 1 of her statement given on oath that appellant had caused blows by axe on her head, near the left eye and back.

11. PW-1 Dularibai Nagesia who is wife of the appellant and daughter of the complainant says in para 1 of her statement given on oath that this is true that her mother had told her that appellant had caused blows on her body.

12. PW-5 Roop Kumar Yadav, former sarpanch says in para 1 of his statement given on oath that complainant had told him that appellant had caused blows near her eye and head by axe.

13. PW-6 Bhanjan Ram Nagesia, who is the nephew of complainant says in para 1 of his statement given on oath that Sarpanch h