The court affirmed the conviction under Section 307 IPC, establishing intent to cause grievous harm based on corroborated eyewitness and medical evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Ananda Sen, J.

The instant criminal appeal is directed against the conviction of the sole appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment of conviction dated 22.06.2015 and order of sentence dated 29.06.2015, whereby the sole accused has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years with a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and in case of default in payment of fine he has to undergo S.I. for six months.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no material to convict the appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. All the witnesses are interested witness and related to the injured. The independent witness, Jagdeo Yadav has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. Surprisingly the incident occurred near the house of one Banarsi Paswan, but he has not been made a witness. He would have been the best witness to depose about the correct fact, but withholding him has given a death blow to the prosecution case. He further argues that as per the prosecution the stab wound was inflicted with sharp cutting weapon i.e. knife (chhura), but the same was not recovered from the possession of the appellant, the blood stained cloth was also not produced. It has further been submitted that even the Doctor’s report would suggest that there was only one injury, which would suggest that there was no intention on the part of the appellant to commit murder of the injured. From evidence, it is clear that there was a land dispute between the parties and there is high probability of false implication. It is the case of the appellant that the witnesses are old and they themselves admit that their eye sight is not good, thus as per the defence it is impossible for these witnesses to see the occurrence. Further there is no motive present in this case. On this background, the appellant prays for acquittal.

3. Learned A.P.P. for the State submitted that only on the ground that the eye witnesses are related with the injured, this Court should not discard their statement. In the instant case, those eye witnesses, who are natural witness to the occurrence, their reliability cannot be questioned. The medical evidence also supports and corroborates with the ocular evidence. The opinion of the Doctor suggests that the injury is grievous and was dangerous for life, thus, as per the prosecution, offence under Section 307 of IPC is made out. The eye witnesses categorically stated that this appellant has assaulted the injured. In view of the clinching evidence, there is no ground to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

4. We have heard, the learned counsel for the parties and we have gone through the records. The fardbeyan is Exhibit-2 and the same is at the instance of Subhagia Devi. In the fardbeyan she has stated that on 09.11.2012 at about 07.00 P.M. there was an altercation going on between Ashok Yadav and her husband Sheodutt Yadav on some issue. Her husband told Ashok Yadav that he would not go with him for drinking liquor and he has no faith upon him. Ashok Yadav told him that he would not repeat similar mistake, which has occurred earlier. The informant intervened and started moving therefrom along with her husband. Ashok Yadav also started following them. Sunil Yadav and Ashok Yadav moved ahead. Thereafter, Ashok Yadav came running and inflicted a knife blow in the stomach of her husband and fled away. Sheodutt Yadav told that Ashok Yadav had stabbed with a knife in his stomach. Thereafter, Nand Kishore Yadav came and told that the victim had assaulted his son, three years ago and he has taken the revenge. When Ram Briksh Yadav came there, they tried to catch the accused, Ashok Yadav. Bablu Yadav, Nagina Yadav and Manoj Yadav were also there in company of the accused. The informant stated that these accused had role in the occurrence. There was a land dispute pending since long between them.

5. On the aforesaid fardbeyan,