The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the nature of injuries and the appropriate offence under the Indian Penal Code, influencing the court's decision to modify the appellant's conviction.

JUDGMENT

V.P. Patel, J.

1. The Appellant Accused has filed this Appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("the Code" for short) being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the conviction order dated 17.2.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Deesa in Sessions Case No. 9 of 1999. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the Appellant Accused under Sections 307 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and 135 of the B.P. Act and imposed the sentence as under:

2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Shakeel A. Qureshi for the Appellant and learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the Respondent-State of Gujarat.

3. Facts of the Case:

3.1 The Original Complainant Rameshbhai Bhagwanbhai Mali has filed a complaint on 21.1.1998 at Deesa City Police Station, District Banaskantha which was registered as I-CR No. 16/1998 for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short) and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act (for short "B.P. Act").

3.2 As per the complaint which is lodged at 20:15 hours, the incident took place on 21.1.1998 at about 18:00 hours in the sim of village Deesa. On 21.1.1998, the complainant Rameshbhai and his brother closed their shop at 6:00 p.m. and went to their house. They were seated in their house. At the time from outside their house, someone called his brother Pankaj who immediately came out and gone to the gateau of Chamunda Society. The complainant heard the screams of Pankaj and thus he too immediately gone there and what he saw was that the driver of the Auto Rickshaw bearing registration No: GJ 8T 1829 named Prakash Sevakram Sindhi was giving knife blows to his brother Pankaj. The complainant shouted, due to which nearby residents came there. The driver of the Auto Rickshaw fled away from the spot. The brother of the complainant was bleeding from his mouth, stomach and neck. On asking Pankaj, he told that two days before near Ambika Chowk he had some altercations with the complainant as regards to parking of Rickshaw. The complainant at that time told Pankaj that he will seek him later and left the place on that date. Today he called me from my house and abused me and took out his knife from his pocket and inflicted me severe knife blows on my neck, stomach and face.

3.3 After completing the investigation the Investigating Officer has filed the charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Deesa which is registered as Criminal Case No. 790 of 1998. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Deesa committed the case under Section 209 of the Code to the Court of Sessions, Banaskantha at Palanpur on 24.1.1998. Thereafter the committal case is registered as Sessions Case No. 9 of 1999. The learned Trial Sessions Judge framed charge on 31.5.2003 vide Exh. 2 for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 504, IPC and under Section 135 of the B.P. Act. The Accused denied the charge and claimed for trial.

3.4 The prosecution has examined 12 witnesses and produced 20 documentary evidence before the trial court. The learned trial court has recorded the further statement of the Appellant Accused under Section 313 of the Code wherein he has denied the case of the prosecution and replied that false case is filed. The learned Trial Court has heard the PP for the prosecution and learned Advocate for the defence and passed the impugned judgment and order.

Arguments for the Appellant:

4. Learned Advocate for the Appellant has argued that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is contrary on t