ORDER

Hirdesh, J. - Record of the court below is received.

Heard on I.A.No.8784/2023, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. As per office note, there is delay of 65 days. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Delay is condoned. I.A.No.8784/2023 is allowed.

2. Also heard on admission. The appeal is admitted for hearing. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

3. This criminal appeal under section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellant being crestfallen by the judgment of conviction dated 10.8.2022 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Betul in S.T.No.400223/2014 whereby appellant-Suklu has been convicted for offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 05 years and fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulations.

4. Brief facts of the case are that on 01.3.2014 the complainant-Sunil Chouhan (PW.6) has lodged a report against the appellant and two others, namely, Chunnilal and Shanker @ Bhalla stating that due to previous enmity appellant alongwith two others came to the house of complainant searching him. The mother of complainant, namely, Samoti Bai (PW-8) was present there, therefore, appellant started abusing her, and later on gave an axe blow causing several injuries resulting in her hospitalization. Accordingly, Crime No.254/2014 was registered for offence under section 307/34 of IPC at the Police Station, Betul. Thereafter, the Police party followed due procedure, arrested the accused and conducted investigation. On completion of investigation charge-sheet has been filed against the appellant under section 307 of IPC in the Court of Magistrate. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Session. The trial Court framed charge against the appellant for offence under section 307 of IPC.

5. The appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence as also his false implication and prayed for trial.

6. The prosecution examined nine (09) witnesses. No witness has been adduced by the appellant in his defence.

7. The trial Court on appreciation of evidence on record and considering the arguments advanced by the parties pronounced the impugned judgment dated 10.8.2022 by convicting and sentencing the appellant, as has been indicated hereinabove.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court has committed grave legal error in convicting the appellant. He further submitted that trial Court has ignored independent witnesses, namely, PW.1 (Kanhaiya), PW.2 (Lallu), PW.3 (Bhangulal) & PW.4 (Bisso Bai) who have not supported the prosecution story and specifically denied the same. He further submitted that trial Court has ignored the statement of complainant-Sunil who specifically stated that there was previous dispute between the parties. He also contended that injured-Samoti Bai specifically did not state anything against the appellant. There are omissions and contradictions in her deposition. He also submitted that out of 05 years of jail sentence, the appellant has already undergone about 04 years of sentence and further prayed that looking to the nature of dispute, the sentence of appellant be reduced to the period already undergone.

9. On the other hand learned counsel for the State has opposed the contentions and prayed for dismissal of appeal. It is submitted that appellant assaulted injured lady and caused multiple injured and hence, he is not entitled for the reliefs claimed by him from this Court.

10. In the backdrop of arguments advanced by the parties, the point of consideration before this Court is whether the finding of the trial Court in convicting and sentencing the appellant under section 307 of IPC is erroneous in the eye of law?

11. At the outset, statement of injured-Samoti Bai (PW.8) is required to be analyzed. She deposed eight years ago the appellant came to her house alongwith accused-Chunnilal (absconded) with axe and when she started going to hous