The central legal point established in the judgment is that the evidence must support the conviction under the relevant sections of the IPC, and in this case, the injuries were not deemed dangerous to life, leading to the conversion of the conviction and reduction of the sentence.

JUDGMENT

Virender Singh, J. - The present appeal is preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 18.09.2019 rendered in Sessions Trial No.148/2018 by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Dewas, whereby the learned trial Court convicted the appellants under section 307, 307/34 (both two counts) of the IPC for causing life threatening injuries to Gopal and Shankar and has awarded 7-7 years RI for each offence and fine of Rs.1000/-1000/-. In default of further to undergo two months RI.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that there was some dispute between the complainant and the appellants on account of some money transaction. On the date of incident, when the complainant saw the appellants ambushing on the way, when he was going to the house of his sister, he apprehended that while returning home they may cause some incident, therefore he requested his brother-in-law Shankar to leave him upto the border of his village. When they were coming back at about 09:30 am, the appellants assaulted them. They were having sticks and swords in their hands stating that they will kill the complainant, both the appellants inflicted sword and stick and caused injuries on the head and hands of the complainant Gopal and Shankar. They both were taken to the hospital. Gopal lodged Dehati Nalishi Ex.P/1, crime no.165/2018 was registered by deducing FIR vide Ex.P/20, both the injured were sent to the hospital vide requisition Ex.P/23, Dr.Pawan Patidar PW/9 examined them and found 1-1 incise wound on the backside of head of Gopal and Shankar. He also found abrasion on right index finger of Gopal. Dr. Patidar advised for X-ray/CT Scan. No bone injury was fond by Dr.Vikas Gupta PW/8 on CT Scan. Report of Dr. Patidar is Ex.P/12-13, their admission slip and treatment papers are Ex.P/14-19. CT Scan report authored by Dr.Gupta PW/8 is Ex.P/10-11. The police seized shirt and baniyan of Gopal vide seizure memo Ex.P/2, plain and blood stained soil from the spot vide seizure memo Ex.P/3. The police apprehended the appellants vide arrest memo Ex.P/4-5, recorded their memorandum statement Ex.P/5-6 and recovered Lathi from Gopal and Sword from Dhansingh vide seizure Memo Ex.P/2-3. The police visited the spot and prepared spot map Ex.P/8, recorded statement of witnesses, send the seized article to the FSL vide letter Ex.P/23. FSL report is Ex.P/24. FSL confirms presence of human blood on the article sent to it. After completing the investigation, the police filed charge sheet.

3. The appellants were charged under section 341, 307 (two counts), 307/34 (two counts) of the IPC, in addition, appellant Dhansingh was also charged under section 25(1B) (b) of the Arms Act. After the trial, the charge under section 341 of the IPC and under section 25(1B)(b) of the Arms Act were not found proved and the appellants were acquitted from those charges but the offence under section 307, 307/34 of the IPC was found proved and the appellant were convicted and sentenced as stated in para no.1 above.

4. The appellants have preferred this appeal on several grounds but during the arguments learned counsel for the appellants submitted that from the evidence produced by the prosecution for the offence under section 307 of the IPC is not made out. At the most, offence under section 324 of the IPC is made out. Both the appellants and the complainant have compromised the case. The compromise is filed and is verified by the Principal Registrar of this Court, therefore, the appellants be acquitted in the wake of compromise between the parties or their sentence be reduced to the period already undergone, which is more than six months.

5. Learned public prosecutor has supported the judgment.

6. In the wake of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants, this Court has examined the evidence produced by the prosecution before the trial Court with a limited purpose as to whether the offence under section 307, 307/34 of the IPC is made out or not.

7. Before the trial