The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has the authority to analyze the evidence and modify the conviction and sentence based on the facts and circumstances of the case.

JUDGMENT

Prem Narayan Singh, J. - Appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') against the judgment dated 15.05.2023 passed by 1st ASJ, Barwah, Khargone (M.P.) in S.T. No.11/2017, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 07 years with a fine of Rs.2000/- respectively and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one months R.I.

2. As per the prosecution story, on 18.12.2016 at about 4:30 PM, the complainant Manoji, Vikas and Vasim were going towards Balwada on Motorcycle. The appellant, Vijay and co-accused Jitenra was coming from Balwada on motorcycle. All of a sudden, there was a collision taken place between both the motorcycles and on this issue, there was a dispute between the parties. They started to beat each other. In the heated spur of moment, the applicant Vijay picked a wooden stick from the spot itself and caused injury to injured Vikas, the dispute was intervened by other persons. Later on, an FIR was lodged under Section 294, 323, 506 of IPC. During the investigation and after the MLC, the offence under Section 307 of IPC was added. After due investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant/accused under Sections 307, 294, 323, 506/34 of IPC against the appellant and co-accused persons.

3. In turn, the case was committed to the Court of Session and thereafter, appellant was charged for offence under Section Section 307, 294, 323, 506/34 of IPC. He abjured his guilt and took a plea that he had been falsely implicated in the present crime and prayed for trial.

4. In support of the case, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses namely Vaseem (PW-1), Sachin (PW-2), Manoj (PW-3), Dr. Milesh (PW-4), Dr. Nitin Bhargava (PW-5), Ramsingh Bodana (PW-6), Firduyus Toppo (PW-7), Praveen Bhagwate (PW-7), Dharmendra (PW-8), Pappu Singh (PW-9), Vikas (PW-10), Dharmandra Panwar (PW(11) & Rajkumar Awashti (PW-12). No witness has been adduced by the appellant in his defence.

5. Learned trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence and argument adduced by the parties, pronounced the impugned judgment on 15.05.2023 and finally concluded the case and convicted the appellant for commission of the said offence under the provisions of Section 307 of IPC while acquitted him from the charges under Section 294, 506/34 of IPC. The learned trial Court has also acquitted co-accused Jitendra & Sonu from all the offences. However, by order of this Court passed in CRR No.807/2017, co-accused Sonu @ Vikki has been discharged from all the charges.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the the appellant is innocent and the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant wrongly without considering the evidence available on record. Counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant has not caused any fatal injury to the injured because there is nothing on record to show that the injured has received serious injury. It is further submitted that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses but the learned trial Court has erred in ignoring the same and in convicting the appellant. It is further submitted that there was no previous enmity between the parties, the incident had happened all of a sudden, there is no knowledge and intention or motive to assault the injured, no deadly weapon was carrying by the accused, hence, the offence shall not travel more than the offence under Section 335 of IPC, but the learned trial Court has wrongly convicted appellant under Section 307 of IPC without considering the evidence available on record. Further, PW-10 Vikas, the injured was drunken and the same fact has already been established in the MLC as well by the statements of doctor and the injured himself has admitted in his crossexamination that if he was not drunken then no incident would happen.

7. It is further submitt