The reliability of the sole witness and the corroborative value of medical evidence are crucial in establishing guilt in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT SUNITA YADAV, J. : – The present appeal has been filed by the appellants aggrieved by the judgment dated 30-7-2010 passed in Sessions Trial No. 370/2007 by the learned 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, by which the appellants herein have been convicted for the offence under section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation of additional rigorous imprisonment of 3 months. The appellants have also been convicted under section 307/34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, with default stipulation of 3 months additional rigorous imprisonment. The appellants have further been convicted under section 324/34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years, with default stipulation of 3 months additional rigorous imprisonment.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 14-5-2007 at about 08:00 p.m. near Chandimata Mandir, Badhai Mohalla, by reason of the dispute over money transaction, the appellants herein hurled abuses at deceased Naresh Koshta. On protest being made by the deceased, appellant No. 1 Roshan Vishwakarma gave him a blow of knife. When Ajay Berman (PW-2) and Kanju Vishwakarma (PW-3) who were standing nearby intercepted and tried to rescue Naresh Kostha, the appellants assaulted them with knife and gupti. Thereafter, the FIR was lodged by Ajay Berman (PW-2) and the police have registered various offences against the appellants.

3. The learned trial Court after recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and hearing the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellants for the offences as mentioned above; hence the appellants preferred this appeal before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case as the eye witnesses PW-1 Munna Koshta, PW-2 Ajay Berman and PW-4 Vicky Rajak, who are also injured witnesses, have not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. He has further argued that the evidence of PW-11 Mahesh Kumar Koshta cannot be relied upon as he is an interested witness being the uncle of the deceased. He has further argued that initially the name of PW-11 Mahesh Kumar Koshta was not there in the challan papers and his name has been introduced as a false witness later on. That PW-17 Dr. Arun Jain has not stated that the injuries to the deceased were sufficient to cause death and as such no case under section 302/34 is made out.

5. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that the appellants had not been able to show any material which would merit the interference of this Court in the concurrent findings of the Court below.

6. PW-17 Dr. Arun Jain conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of deceased Naresh Koshta on 15-5-2007 and gave his report Ex.P-33. This witness has noted following injuries on the dead body :

Injury No. 1 one stab wound on right side of chest close to sternum between 3 to 4 inter costal space, ½ x ½ inches deep to penetrating left atrium, chest cavity was full of blood, third rib was partially cut. Underlying muscles, tissues, blood vessels found cut. Injury No. 2 three incised wounds were present on right side of chest, close to nipple size ½ x ½ x ½ inches. Injury No. 3 two abrasions, one on right cheek and another on right wrist each size 1 x ½ inches. Injury No. 4 incised wound ½ x ½ x ¾ inches, on left axilla directing upwards blood found at the site of injury.

7. PW-17 Dr. Arun Jain has opined that the death of Naresh Koshta was on account of hemorrhagic shock caused by excessive bleeding.

8. Dr. A. K. Jain (PW-12) has done MLC of injured Kanju Vishwakarma and Ajay Raikwar on the same day at 9 pm at Victoria Hospital. He found following injury on the body of Kanju Vishwakarm: An incised wound on left axilla region, the injury was one inch long; width was ¾ inch, however