ORDER :

Mr. Ashok Kumar Jain, J. - Present appeal is preferred aggrieved from judgment dated 27.01.1995 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 18/1993 whereby accused-appellant has been found guilty for offence under Section 308 IPC and he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.1,500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

2. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that during trial, except injured all other eight witnesses had turned hostile and they had not supported the story of prosecution. He further submitted that injured Nathu Ram deposed as PW-2 had not corroborated the involvement of present appellant-accused in cross-examination. He further submitted that from contradictions and infirmities, it is much clear that there was improvement as regard to use of weapon is concerned. He further submitted that in the report registered, it is indicated that the 'knife' was used whereas in the statement, use of 'Gupti' was alleged. He further submitted that it was not proved that the incident as alleged by complainant had really taken place. He further submitted that except sole injured, no other supportive witness was produced by prosecution to prove the case of prosecution. He further submitted that testimony of single witness can only be relied upon provided his testimony is of sterling worth. He further submitted that medical evidence is not sufficient to prove that injury Nos. 1 and 2 inflicted upon injured were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature as no surgical record or operation record was produced to justify that the injuries were sufficient to cause death of injured. He further submitted that no evidence was led by prosecution to prove that with intention to cause culpable homicide blows were caused by accused-appellant. He further submitted that conclusion of learned trial Court to convert conviction under Section 308 IPC is erroneous. At the end, he submitted that incident is of year 1993 and appellant is facing the proceedings for last 30 years.

3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor.

4. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record.

5. The only contradiction which is pointed out by learned counsel for appellant is the nature of weapon used to inflict injuries upon complainant-injured. In report Ex.P-2, it was mentioned that knife was used whereas in the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., use of 'Gupti' is disclosed. PW-2 is injured and in his examination-in-chief straightaway use of 'Gupti' was alleged. On this point, during cross-examination, a clarification is offered, wherein when asked defence, PW-2 clarified that he was not aware whether the weapon used was called as knife or 'Gupti', hence this point is well answered in cross-examination of PW-2, so this is not a ground to discard evidence of injured.

6. Herein, the name of present appellant accused was figured in FIR (Ex.P-2) and also in statement of PW-2 Nathu Ram. When we look at statements of other witnesses who turned hostile, one thing is quite clear that PW-3 Ram Gopal accompanied injured to police station though he denied the fact of injury caused by accused-appellant. Herein one more witness i.e. PW-6 (Rupnarayan) also supported the fact that blood was running out of chest of injured. Similar was the statement of PW-7 (Satyanarayan) though all other witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution but here in this case, except PW-2 no other witness had supported the sto