The judgment established the importance of custodial confessional statements and the admissibility of recovery of the weapon of offence, as mandated by Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in determining the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 326 of IPC.

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

1. The instant revision petition stands directed against the impugned judgment of 28.4.2010 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Kullu in Criminal Appeal No. 07/2010, whereby he affirmed the judgment of 20.1.2010 rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Manali, District Kullu, H.P. in Criminal Case No. 48-1/09: 46-II/09 whereupon the petitioner herein (hereinafter referred to as “accused”) stood convicted besides sentenced for his committing an offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 5.11.2008 at 8 a.m. complainant Pawna Devi, her husband Chunni Lal and nephew Kuldeep were present in the room of the house. In the upper story of the room of the house of the complainant, her brother-in-law (Jeth)/accused also resides alongwith his family. On the draining of water from the upper story of the room in which the accused alongwith his family resides, the complainant went upside and informed the accused with regard to the falling of water on her bed. On this accused started abusing her. The complainant came out to the verandah of the house. The husband of the complainant also arrived there. Accused in presence of Kuldip hit Chunni Lal with knife in his stomach and also threatened him to do away with his life and fled away. The injured thereafter was shifted to Mission Hospital, Manali for medical treatment. On the same day at 8.30 a.m. the complainant reported the matter to the police of Police Station, Manali through telephone. Rapat No. 15(a) was registered. After completing all codal formalities and on conclusion of the investigation into the offence by the investigating Officer, allegedly committed by the accused challan was prepared and filed in the Court

3. The accused stood charged by the learned trial Court for his committing offence punishable under Sections 326 and 506 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses. On closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded wherein he pleaded innocence and claimed false implication. In defence he did not choose to lead any evidence.

5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court returned findings of acquittal qua the accused for his committing an offence punishable under Section 506 of I.P.C however it returned findings of conviction qua the accused for his committing an offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the accused has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court, findings whereof stood affirmed by the learned Appellate Court, standing not based on a proper appreciation of evidence on record rather theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation of the relevant material on record by both the Courts below. Hence he contends qua the concurrently recorded findings of conviction warranting reversal by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and theirs standing replaced by findings of acquittal.

7. The learned Deputy Advocate General, has with considerable force and vigor contended qua the findings of conviction concurrently recorded by both the learned Courts below standing based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record and theirs not necessitating interference rather meriting vindication.

8. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side has with studied care and incision evaluated the entire evidence on record.

9. In the alleged occurrence, wherein the prosecution ascribes a penal ascription qua the accused committing an offence punishable under Section 326 of I.P.C, the victim sustained injuries borne on Ex. PW-1/A proven by PW-1.

10. With PW-1 (Dr. Philip Alexander) making underscorings in his testification qua the injuries embodied in Ex.