JUDGMENT

1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. by the appellant being crestfallen by the judgment dated 29.12.2017 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge Sendhwa, District-Barwani in Sessions Trial No.90/2015 whereby the appellant Phenda has been convicted for the offence under Sections 307 of IPC, 1860 and sentenced to undergo 7 years R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- and default stipulation.

2. Briefly stated facts leading to the present appeal in short are that the complainant lodged a complaint that the complainant borrowed the money Rs.1,200/- from the accused/Phenda, out of which Rs.1,000/- was paid to the accused. Thereafter, the accused purchased some goods from the kirana shop of the complainant. On 19.04.2015 at about 8:00 o'clock, the accused met with the complainant and demanded borrowed money Rs.200/-, in reply, the complainant said to him that money is due over him, as and when the due amount paid to complainant, the same will be returned to the accused. On this sequence, upon aggression, accused used filthy language and assaulted the complainant with knife and caused injuries. On screaming of complainant, his son Suresh and his wife Shelubai came on the spot, as they reached, the accused threw his knife and fled away. Thereafter, the complainant took the said knife and went the Police Station to lodge report alongwith his son Suresh, Sarpanch Banshilal. Thereafter, the police party, following due procedure, arrested the accused person, registered the case against the appellant. After necessary investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant under Section 307 of IPC.

3. In turn, the case was committed to the Court of Session vide order dated 29.12.2017 and thereafter, appellant was charged for offence under Section 307 of IPC. He abjured his guilt and took a plea that he had been falsely implicated in the present crime and prays for trial.

4. In support of the prosecution case, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses namely Padwi (PW-1), Suresh (PW-2), Shelubai (PW-3), Bhangya (PW-4), Kaliya (PW-5), Sildar (PW-6), Nandilal (PW-7), Katarsingh (PW-8), Suresh Mahale, Inspector (PW-9), Rajendra Thakur, Medical Officer (PW-10) and Dr. Kailashchandra Mandloi (PW-11). No witness has been adduced by the appellant in his defence.

5. Learned trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence and arguments adduced by the parties, pronounced the impugned judgment dated 29.12.2017 by concluding the case and convicted the appellant for commission of the said offence by sentencing him as hereinabove.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court has not considered the material evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has committed grave error of law in not considering the material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. It is further submitted that there is no one to look after the family and he is facing the trial since 2015. The appellant is aged about 65 years and no fruitful purpose would be served to keep the old age person in judicial custody.

7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand supports the impugned judgment and prays for dismissal of this appeal by submitting that the appellant has assaulted the injured/complainant and caused injuries to him. Hence, he is not entitled for any relief from this Court.

8. In back drop of the arguments advanced by counsel for both parties, the point for consideration is as to whether the findings of the learned trial Court in convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 307 of IPC, is erroneous in the eyes of law and facts.

9. At the outset, the statement of injured/complainant/Padwi (PW-1) is required to be contemplated. He has deposed that on 19.04.2015 at about 8:00 o'clock, the accused met with the complainant and demanded borrowed money Rs.200/-, in reply, the complainant said to him that money is due over him, as and when the due amount pa