The court clarified that the prosecution must establish the elements of grievous injury to sustain a conviction under Section 307 IPC, and that an alibi defense can be accepted if supported by credible evidence.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order D/- 20/04/1983, passed by Shri M. K. Sangal, IV Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura, in S. T. No. 21 of 1982, State v. Pooran Singh, under Section 307. I. P. C. , whereby he convicted the accused appellant pooran Singh under Section 307, I. P. C. and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000. 00 and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months, and convicted accused-appellant Ghasi Ram of the offence under Section 307/34, I. P. C. and Sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years.

( 2 ) SADHU Singa was the victim in this case. He was employed in the 3 R. P. D. in the days of occurrence. The prosecution case was that on 14/03/1981 he was present in the meeting of the Darbar in which the Officer Commanding used to hear the grievances of the labourers; that in that meeting accused-appellant Pooran Singh instigated the emp1oyees, to which he objected that after the Darbar was over, accused-appellant Pooran Singh stopped him and gave. him a threat that he would take his life; that in respect of this threat he (Sadhu Singh) informed the police through the Commanding Officer and that consequent upon the said information to the police, Pooran Singh-accused appellant, was arrested and sent to jail. The present occurrence was dated 21/03/1981. On that date according to prosecution story, Sadhu Singh, victim, came out from the gate of the Depot at about 12. 30 p. m. after Holi Milan; that as soon as he came out from the gate, accused-appellant Pooran Singh stopped him and shouted "tumne MERE KHILAPH REPORT KI HAI AUR MERA VIRODH KIYA HAI AAJ MAIN TUJHE DEKHUNGA," that Pooran Singh accused-appellant, was accompanied by Ghasi Ram accused-appellant, and one more person; that Ghasi Ram accused-appellant then instigated accused-appellant Pooran Singh, "dekhta KYA HAI KHATAM KAR DE," whereupon accused-appellant Pooran Singh took out a Katta from his "anti and fired at him and he having turned, the fire struck in his elbow. As per prosecution case, the occurrence was seen by Kaushal, Soni, Ram Chandra, Janki and others, who saved Sadhu Singh, injured.

( 3 ) THE F. I. R. of this case was lodged by Shri Sadhu Singh, injured, at the Police Station the same day at 1. 15 p. m. On the basis of the F. I. R. a chik report Exhibit Ka 5 was prepared by the Clerk, Constable, and the case was registered. The usual investigation followed which resulted in the submission of the charge-sheet and the committal of the accused to the Court of Session for the offence under Section 307, I. P. C.

( 4 ) THE medical examination of Sadhu Singh was made by Mr. P. P. Pathak, Medical Officer, District Hospital Mathura on 21-3-1981 at 3. 30 p. m. He found the following injuries on the bodyof injured Sadhu Singh. "l. Wound of entry 0. 5 cm. x 0:5 cm. on back of right elbow joint. Margins blackening and tatooing present. 2. Wound of exit 1 cm. x 0. 5 cm. x depth not measured x bleeding present on front of upper part of right lower arm. 2 cm. below of cubital fossa. In the opinion of Dr. Pathak the injuries were fresh, caused by fire arm injury (injuries were kept under observation ). No X-ray was done. Consequently, there was no supplementary report.

( 5 ) AT the trial the victim-informant Sadhu Singh was examined as PW-1. He testified to the occurrence and nominated both the accused-appellants as per prosecution story. However, the eye-witnesses Ram Chandra PW-2, Kaushal Kishore PW-3, Janki Prasad PW-4 and Soni Ram PW-6 turned totally hostile and claimed that they had not seen the occurrence at all. Both the accused denied the present occurrence. Accused appellant Pooran Singh denied the previous incident and the present occurrence. He however, admitted, that a F. I. R. had been lodged against him about the previous occurrence and therein he had been bailed out. He claim