The conviction under Section 307 IPC requires proof of intention to cause death or grievous bodily harm, which was established despite the injuries being classified as simple.

Judgment :

(Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.)

1. Assail in the present criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the CrPC preferred by the sole appellant-accused, is to the legality, validity and correctness of the judgment dated 26.09.2023 passed by the 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, in Sessions Trial No. 100/2022 by which the appellant herein has been convicted for offence under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced thereunder to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs.1,000/-; in default of payment of fine amount the appellant has to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for three months.

2. The case of the prosecution as projected by the prosecution and accepted by the trial Court is that on 26.03.2022 at about 8:45 am, at Dheemar para, in front of shop of Anmol, Police Station Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, the appellant assaulted Durga Dhimar (PW-1) with sickle by which she suffered injuries which were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. She was escorted to the hospital and was undergone for treatment from 26.03.2022 to 30.03.2022. The said incident was reported by Seukram (PW-2), father-in- law of the victim (PW-6), pursuant to which FIR was registered vide Ex.P/4. Nazri naksha was prepared vide Ex.P/1. At the instance of the appellant weapon of offence i.e. sickle and his clothes were seized vide Ex.P/6. Other articles were also seized. Durga Dhimar (PW-1) was medically examined by Dr. Ashiya Parveen (PW-3) who prepared the medical report vide Ex.P/10. As per medical report of the victim (Ex.P/10) proved by Dr. Ashiya Parveen (PW-3), she (PW-1) has suffered 9 injuries over her body. As per query report (Ex.P/13) proved by Dr. Ashiya Parveen (PW-3), the injuries which were found over the body of PW-1 were simple in nature, howeve she has further stated that if PW-1 was not provided medical aid at right in time, then death might be possible as a consequence of injuries sustained by her (PW-1).

3. After due investigation, appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law. The appellant/accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence.

4. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 25 documents, whereas, the appellant in defence has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence brought on record, pleaded innocence and false implication.

5. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellant for the offence as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment, against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

6. Mr. Shobhit Koshta, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for the offence in question. He would also submit that considering the nature of injuries which were simple in nature and she was hospitalised for 4 days and even all the injuries were on the non vital part of the body. Therefore, the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him as he was in jail since 26.03.2022. Thus, the appeal is allowed in full or part.

7. Mr. Pankaj Singh, learned State counsel, would submit that prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and the appellant is not entitled for acquittal.

8. I have heard learned counsel, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records minutely.

9. Now, the question for consideration, would be whether the trial Court is justified in convicting the ap