Injured witness testimony accorded special status in law, and supporting evidence from medical reports and investigating officer led to the appellant's conviction.

JUDGMENT : – This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short “Cr.P.C.”) against the impugned judgment dated 26-5-1999 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonkatch, District Dewas in S.T. No. 57/98, whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 326 of Indian Penal Code (in short “IPC”) and sentenced to undergo 3 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation of 6 month’s S. I.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 11-12-1997 at about 12.45 p.m. when complainant Vinod Solanki (PW-1) was reading banner in front of his shop, at that time from the backside present appellant came there armed with sword and with intention to kill him, he gave a blow of sword over his head, due to which complainant Vinod sustained injuries over his head. Appellant gave second blow of sword to the complainant and in order to save himself, complainant caught hold the sword, due to which he sustained several injuries over his fingers. Thereafter appellant gave two more blows of sword over his hand and back. The incident was witnessed by Prakash, Jaisingh, Ratanlal and Poonamchandra. There was old enmity between complainant and the appellant. Complainant lodged an FIR at P. S. Sonkatch, District Dewas, which was written by Sub Inspector V. D. Yadav (PW-13). Victim’s MLC has been conducted by Dr. Praveen Mishra. During the investigation sword was recovered from the possession of the appellant. Victim’s blood stained clothes were seized by the police and all the seized articles were sent to the FSL for their chemical examination. As per the FSL report and report of the serologist, human blood was found over all the articles.

3. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the appellant before the JMFC, Sonkatch, who committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Dewas, later on the case was transferred to the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonkatch for its trial. The Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonkatch on the basis of the allegations made in the charge-sheet, framed the charges under section 307 of Indian Penal Code and section 25(1)(a) of Arms Act. The appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded complete innocence and took the plea that he has been falsely implicated.

4. In order to bring home the charge, prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited the documents Ex.P/1 to P/21. Appellant did not examine any witness in his defence.

5. The trial Court after considering the submissions advanced by both the parties and scrutinizing the entire evidence available on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned hereinabove and acquitted him from the charge under section 307 of Indian Penal Code and section 25(1)(a) of Arms Act. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has erred while relying upon the sole statement of the complainant Vinod (PW-1). All the independent witnesses namely Prakash (PW-3), Jaisingh (PW-5) and Ratanlal (PW-7) have turned hostile and they have not supported the prosecution story. Dr. Praveen Mishra (PW-6) and other doctors who were examined before the trial Court have deposed that the victim has sustain only simple injuries, therefore, no offence under section 326 of Indian Penal Code is made out. There was previous enmity between the appellant and the complainant, due to which appellant has been falsely implicated in this offence. Seizure witness Sourabh Purohit (PW-4) has also turned hostile. There are material contradictions and omissions in the statement of the complainant Vinod and other witnesses. The trial Court has failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances reasonably and appropriately. The judgment passed by the trial Court is illegal, erroneous and without jurisdiction. Therefore, appeal may be allowed and the conviction of the appellant be set aside and the appellan