JUDGMENT

1. In this criminal appeal, the judgment delivered on 12.1.2023 by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara, district Narsinghpur, in Sessions Trial No.22/2019 has been challenged under which the appellant was convicted under section 307 of IPC and was sentenced to seven years RI and a fine amount of Rs.2,000/- with default clause.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 30.12.2018 at about 11:30 a.m. complainant Pannalal Patel was near his field and his brother Paramlal was standing in the field for arranging water for irrigation, when appellant Mahesh Patel came there carrying an axe and started hurling abuses; Complainant Pannalal Patel objected to it, this led the appellant to give complainant four blows with the axe in his hand which caused two injuries in his head, one in neck and one in left hand. The incident was seen by Paramlal and Jairam. FIR was lodged, complainant was medically examined and other proceedings were undertaken in the investigation of crime. It was revealed in the query report that the injuries caused to the complainant were dangerous to life and could have been caused by the axe seized from the appellant. After completion of trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced by the impugned judgment.

3. The grounds taken in this appeal are that the learned court below failed to appreciate the evidence available on record and could not understand the fact that the appellant was falsely implicated in the case. There were major contradictions, omissions and improvements in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Many of the witnesses did not support the prosecution story which makes it reasonable doubtful. Only on the basis of testimony of related witnesses, the finding of conviction has been given. The injuries caused to the complainant were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The seizure of weapon i.e. the axe was also not proved beyond doubt. The appellant is in jail since 31.12.2018 and has no previous record. Hence, the prayer for acquittal is made in the memo of appeal. During final arguments, it was pleaded by learned counsel for the appellant that if the conviction is maintained, the appellant be released from custody for the period already undergone.

4. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State has seriously opposed this appeal. According to her, the conviction as well as sentence do not suffer from any infirmity, hence deserve no intervention. It is therefore prayed that the appeal be dismissed.

5. The arguments from both the counsel have been heard and the record of the trial court is being perused.

6. According to the prosecution, the incident occurred on 30.12.2018 at about 11:30 a.m. Ex.P1 is Dehati Nalishi written on the basis of information given by injured complainant Pannalal Patel which discloses that the information was given without any delay on 30.12.2018 itself at 16:05 p.m. Persons who witnessed the incident have also been named in this Dehati Nalishi.

7. Injured Pannalal Patel (P.W.1) has narrated the prosecution version in his examination-in-chief and it is relevant to observe that despite elaborate cross-examination, the defence could not point out any contradiction in the Court testimony and the previous statements of this witness recorded by the police. Jairam Patel whose name has been mentioned in the Dehati Nalishi as eyewitness has also corroborated the prosecution story on material points. The statements of Paramlal Patel are also similarly placed as he has been named as eyewitness in the Dehati Nalishi and has corroborated the prosecution case on all material points during his court testimony.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that these witnesses were not independent witnesses, hence they should not have been relied upon but this fact has also been considered by learned trial Court and on the basis of relevant citation he has reached to the conclusion that the witness can be termed as interested only w