JUDGMENT

1. This appeal has been preferred under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.') against the judgment dated 09/07/1998 passed by the XIV Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Sessions Trial No.177/1998, whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') and has been sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation of 02 years rigorous imprisonment.

2. The brief facts of the case are that complainant Bholaram and appellant both are relatives. On 22/01/1996 while the complainant Bholaram was standing on the road, at that time appellant came out from his home and told the complainant that 'how your dare to come here'. There was some old dispute between them regarding some money transaction. Then the appellant took out a knife with an intention to kill him and gave two blows of knife on complainant's abdomen, due to which complainant feel down on the spot. He was taken to a Hospital. After that Rajendra launched an FIR. MLC was conducted by Dr. Sanjay Kumar Bhatnagar (PW-5). Two cut injuries were found over his abdomen and omentum was coming out. Doctor opined that both the injuries were grievous in nature and were caused by some sharp and blunt object within 24 hours of the examination. Spot map was prepared by the Investigating Officer. During investigation a knife was recovered from the possession of the present appellant and the same was sent for FSL examination.

3. After completion of entire investigation, charge sheet was filed under Section 307 of the IPC against the appellant/accused before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Indore, which was transferred to the XIV Additional Sessions Judge, Indore for trial. The trial Court on the basis of the allegation levelled in the charge sheet framed charge for offence under Section 307 of the IPC. The appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded his innocence before the trial Court.

4. In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses and placed Exhibit-P/1 to P/13 on record. The defence of the appellant is of false implication, but he did not examine any witness in his defence. The trial Court after due consideration of the entire evidence available on record convicted and sentenced the appellant as referred herein above.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has erred in relying upon the statement of the prosecution witnesses and discarding the defence version. There are so many material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the complainant Bholaram (PW-1), therefore, his statement cannot be relied upon. The prosecution has not examined available independent eye-witness Lalchand, therefore, adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution. Rajendra (PW-2) and Manohar (PW-3) both are interested witnesses and they are not the eye-witnesses, hence, their evidence cannot be relied upon. The statement of complainant Bholaram was not supported by the medical evidence. Independent seizure witnesses have been turned hostile. The judgment passed by the trial Court is contrary to law and facts on record. The prosecution could not prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, this appeal be allowed and the appellant be acquitted from the charge under Section 307 of the IPC.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State supported the impugned judgment and order of conviction by submitting that the learned trial Court on proper appreciation of evidence has recorded the conviction and the same does not call for any interference.

7. Counsel for both the parties are heard and perused the record of the trial Court with due care.

8. In order to appreciate the merits of the rival contention in its true perspective, it is necessary to advert the medical evidence available on record