IMPORTANT POINT
The court modified the appellant's sentence from five years to two years for attempt to murder, finding no premeditation and establishing the act as one of sudden provocation.

JUDGMENT :

DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.

1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant-original accused under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.” for short) challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 26.07.2004 passed by the learned 2nd Fast Track Judge, Gondal, District Rajkot in Sessions Case No. 4 of 1997, whereby, the appellant has been convicted for the offences under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC” for short) and thereby, sentenced him to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment.

2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under:

2.1 On the fateful day on 14.10.1996, the complainant’s brother was in the field and fetching water from the canal through water pump, at that relevant point of time, his servant was also there with him and the appellant came there and he asked him to stop the motor pump. The injured had not accepted his request to stop motor-pump on the contrary rather he continued with activities to fetch the water from the canal through motor-pump. The injured replied that there was huge water lying in the canal, so the appellant also could get it from there. Due to which some verbal altercation took place between them, which ultimately converted into the scuffle, during the heat of moment dispute is escalated, the appellant had inflicted stick blow on the head of the victim and due to which, blood started oozing from the head and injured sustained very severe injury and due to which, he fallen down and became unconscious. The injured was immediately taken to the hospital for treatment. Whereas, after committing the said crime, the appellant ran away from the place of occurrence. Initially, a Janva Jog entry was registered with the ‘A’ Division Police Station, Rajkot. As the health of the injured victim getting deteriorated and could not get consciousness for initial period of treatment, therefore, the doctor had informed to the Police Station and ultimately, a criminal Complaint being FIR No. I-102 of 1996 registered for the offence under Sections-307, 504 of IPC with the Kotada Sangani Police Station against the present appellant.

2.2 Pursuant to the registration of the FIR, the investigation had commenced and at the end of day, after conclusion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer concerned had filed chargesheet against the accused before the Court of the learned Magistrate, Gondal at Rajkot.

2.3. Since the case registered against the appellant-accused was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the Learned Magistrate after making inquiry about the suppliance of copies of papers, free of cost to the accused as provided under Section 208 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and upon satisfaction that the accused have engaged own Advocate for defence committed the case to the Court of Session Judge, Rajkot under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which came to be registered as Session Case No. 04 of 1997.

2.4 On committal, the case was transferred and placed for trial before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gondal, who had initially framed charge against the accused vide Exh.1 for the alleged offences. The charge was read over and explained to the accused. Plea of the accused came to be recorded vide Exh.2, wherein he pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.

2.5 Thereafter in order to bring home the charges leveled against the appellant-accused, the prosecution has examined 15 prosecution witnesses and also produced 15 documentary evidences, relevant details of which are mentioned in the impugned order.

2.6 After recording of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was over, the learned Sessions Court explained to the accused the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and recorded his further statement under Section 313 of the Crimi