JUDGMENT :

NAVNEET KUMAR, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.02.2007 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pakur in Sessions Case No. 165 of 2004 in connection with Pakuria P.S. Case No. 25 of 2004, corresponding to G.R. No. 329 of 2004, Pakur, Jharkhand, whereby and where under the sole appellant has been found guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (hereinafter referred to as the RI) for a period of 5(five) years and also to pay fine to a sum of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) and in default of payment of fine he was further directed to undergo RI for a period of one year.

2. The prosecution story arose in the wake of fardbeyan of Rajen Murmu S/o Josey Murmu of village Bichpahari P.S. Pakuria, Distt. Pakur recorded by B. Tiwari ASI of Pakuria P.S. on 21.08.2004 at about 19.30 p.m. at Primary Health Center Pakuria. Informant Rajen Murmu (PW-9) disclosed in the said fardbeyan as under:

On 21.08.2004 at about 12.00 noon the informant Rajen Murmu (PW-9) along with his wife were plucking Maize from their own land where other vegetable plants were still lying in the said land. It was alleged that the accused along with two to three unknown cowherds were trying to get their she buffaloes entered into the field for the purpose of grazing. It was further alleged that the informant made a protest upon which the accused asked him not to obstruct him otherwise he would chop off his neck and simultaneously gave a Hansua (sharp edged weapon) blow on his neck with intent to kill him, as a result of which blood started oozing from the left side of the neck. It was further alleged that the wife of the informant raised alarm upon which the accused and the unknown cowherds fled away with their cattle seeing the arrival of the villagers. It was further stated that the villagers took the injured to Primary Health Centre, Pakuria where the Fardbeyan Exhitbit-2 of the informant was recorded on the basis of which the formal FIR Ext.3 was drawn.

3. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant Pakuria P.S. Case was registered vide Pakuria P.S. Case No. 25/2004, under section 324,307/34 of IPC and after the investigation charge sheet was submitted vide Charge Sheet No. 24/2004 dated 30.09.2004 under section324 and 307/34 of IPC. Cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge, Pakur had framed charge on 10th May 2005 under section 307 of IPC. The learned trial court after conducting the full-fledged trial, passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which is under challenge in this appeal.

4. Heard Mr. Uday Choudhary, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. V.S. Sahay, the learned Addl. P.P. for the State.

Arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant

5. Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the sole appellant submitted that the learned trial court did not appreciate the injury alleged to have been inflicted upon the informant PW-9 and passed the impugned judgment of conviction for the offence punishable u/s 307 of IPC which is not made out at all as evident from the injury report in the light of the version of the injured eye witness PW-9 also. It has further been pointed out that there are contradictions in the statements of informant PW-9 who has stated in the fardbeyan that the appellant had given a Hansua (sharp edged weapon) blow on his neck but it was evident from Para 1 of his examination-in-chief that the Hansua blow was given on his head and as such statement of PW-9 is not reliable. Further, it has also been pointed out that although the I.O. the PW-11 had sta