The testimony of an injured witness is generally reliable, and minor discrepancies do not undermine its credibility, especially in cases of serious offenses like attempted murder.

JUDGMENT :

(Sudesh Bansal, J.) :

1. Both accused-appellants have preferred this joint appeal under Section 374 CrPC, assailing the judgment dated 17.01.1991 passed in Sessions Case No.3/1988 (State Vs. Munna @ Jaid) by the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Jaipur whereby and whereunder appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/-each and in default to further undergo one month rigorous imprisonment.

2. The genesis of the present criminal appeal is a parcha bayan of Murarilal-complainant/ injured, who was a police Head Constable, made on 28.03.1988 whereupon FIR No.100/1988 was registered at Police Station Kotwali, Jaipur against appellants for offences under Sections 307 and 34 IPC. In parcha bayan (Ex.P4) injured Murarilal stated that Faiz Mohd. and Munna had rivalry from him and when he went at about 2:30 PM to get iron his clothes from washerman Kalu at Maniharo Ka Rasta, he was attacked by both accused with knife. He stated that he was stabbed in stomach, waist, chest and left shoulder as also on back by the knife and when he fell down, both accused ran away from there shouting that he has died. He further stated that, after having hurt, he hired an auto-rickshaw and came Kotwali where he met with Constable Usman Khan with whom he went to hospital. In the parcha bayan, he also named one Mohd. Shafi (third brother of both assailants). Parcha bayan of Murarilal was recorded in the hospital and after registration of FIR, investigation was commenced thereupon. Both accused-appellants were arrested. After concluding the investigation, charge-sheet against both accused-appellants for offences under Section 307/34 IPC was submitted before the concerned Magistrate, who committed the case for trial to the Sessions Court. Before the Sessions Court, after framing charges, accused-appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In prosecution evidence as many as 11 witnesses were examined and documents were exhibited. Then statements of both accused under Section 313 CrPC were recorded. Accused persons did not produce any defence evidence. Thereafter, Sessions Court vide judgment impugned has convicted and sentenced both accused as mentioned hereinabove, hence, this appeal by both accused-appellants.

3. The contention of learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants is that there are contradictions and discrepancies in statements of complainant/ injured Murarilal and he has falsely implicated both accused in the present criminal case because of having previous rivalry with them, hence, the evidence of injured Murarilal is not trustworthy enough to convict appellants. The contention of learned counsel is that as per prosecution, there were three eye witnesses of the incident namely Hukumat Rai, Babulal and Hanuman, who were made witnesses of prosecution. Only one eye witness Hukumat Rai appeared as PW.3, who has been declared hostile and has not supported the case of prosecution. Other two eye witnesses have not appeared to prove the case of prosecution. Recovery memo of weapon (Knife) and blood stained clothes has not been proved and witnesses of recovery memo also turned hostile. The recovery of knife was made from an open place and knife was not confronted from the injured to verify that same was used by appellants to stab him. Learned counsel contends that out of five knife blows only one blow has been found in stomach, which too has not been proved to be dangerous to life and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. In this respect, statements of Dr. V.N. Gupta (PW.5) Medical Jurist and Dr. Raghvendra Rana (PW.1), who perform operation of injured, do not support the prosecution case. Report of FSL has not been exhibited, therefore, linking evidence to match the blood group of injured with the blood found on stained clothes and weapon, is absent. Hence, the contention of counsel for a