The main legal point established in the judgment is the confirmation of the conviction for attempting to murder based on the corroborated evidence of eyewitnesses, medical reports, and the intention of the accused to cause bodily injury likely to cause death.

JUDGMENT :

This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 6.9.1997 passed in S.T. No.248/1996 (State of M.P. Vs. Sukhcharan and another), whereby they have been convicted for commission of offence under Section 307 of IPC and have been sentenced to 7-7 years R.I. by Sessions Judge, Balaghat.

2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are as under :

The case of the complainant Mahadas, as recorded in the FIR, is that on 21.3.1996 at around 9.30 a.m. when he was returning to his home from the fields; on the way to his home, Sukhcharan armed with spear and his son Rajendra armed with bamboo stick (lathi) met and on account of old enmity started to abuse him and told that they will kill him today. Sukhcharan gave a spear below his head near left eye, he gave another blow in the left leg below knee. Blood started to ooze. Rajendra Lodhi gave club blows over his head and back. As there was previous enmity between them, the appellant Sukhcharan, along with his son Rajendra with an intention to kill, caused multiple injuries to the complainant/ injured Mahadas. Incident of ‘marpeet’ by Sukhcharan and Rajendra was witnessed by Sushila Bai, Kastura Bai and Ratan Lodhi who were working there. They had pacified the incident. As per the narration given by Mahadas Lodhi (P.W.13), an FIR was registered at Crime No.15/96 of P.S. Bahela, District Balaghat for commission of offence under Section 307/34 of IPC. Injured Mahadas was sent to Primary Health Centre, Bahela, in Public Health Centre, he was medically examined by Dr. B. L. Yadav (P.W.1). Dr. B. L. Yadav referred him to District Hospital and advised x-ray of injury No.3 and 6 of injured Mahadas. In District Hospital, Balaghat, x-ray of left foot of Mahadas was taken and in x-ray tibia and fibula of his left leg were found broken. X-ray of left hand was also taken. Dr. G. C. Sharma (P.W.2) noted compound fracture in the tibia and fibula of left leg and fracture in the base of second metacarpal bone of the left hand of Mahadas.

3. In the course of investigation Head Constable Nimar Chand (P.W.16) visited the place of occurrence and prepared site map Exhibit P/19. He seized blood stained cloth and prepared seizure memo Exhibit P/6. On 29.8.96 S.I. T. R. Sahu (P.W.12) seized bamboo stick from accused Rajendra and prepared seizure memo Exhibit P/7. He seized a spear from accused Sukhcharan and prepared seizure memo Exhibit P/16. He arrested both the accused persons and prepared arrest memo Exhibit P/17 and P/18. Seized bamboo wood and spear were sent to doctor for getting their opinion. Seized blood stained earth, from the plain earth, cloth, lathi and spear along with Exhibit P/20 memo were sent for chemical examination to F.S.L., Sagar. Exhibit P/1 F.S.L. report was received from Sagar. After completion of investigation, Police Bahela, District Balaghat filed charge sheet against the appellants/ accused before JMFC, Balaghat who in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions.

4. Accused persons were charged for commission of offence under Section 307 of IPC. They abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried.

5. Learned Sessions Judge after recording prosecution and defense witness and after hearing the parties, convicted the appellants/ accused for commission of offence under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced them as mentioned herein above.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants assailed the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court and has submitted that learned Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Learned Trial Court has discarded the evidence of defense witnesses whereas, it was required to give same weight to the evidence of defence witnesses. Injured Mahadas in his evidence has admitted that he had enmity with appellants/ accused and over that enmity he had falsely implicated the appellants/ accused. Learned