ORDER

1. With the consent of both learned counsel for the parties, heard finally at motion stage.

2. Appellant has preferred this criminal appeal under section 415(2) of BNSS, challenging the judgment dated 25.1.2025 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions, Judge Begumganj, District-Raisen in ST. No.98 of 2022, whereby appellant has been convicted under section 307 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years and with fine of Rs.2,000/-, with default stipulation.

3. Briefly prosecution story is that on 9.3.2022, at about 7:30 p.m. in the evening, in village Khumari, in front of the gate of complainant, appellant assaulted Hiralal with axe and thereby caused injury on the right side of the chest.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant, after referring to testimony of injured/complainant Hiralal (PW-1), submits that he has turned hostile and he did not support prosecution story. Further, after referring to testimony of Shubham (PW-3) and Arti Bai (PW-4), submits that they are also not eyewitness of the incident. Further, after referring to cross-examination of aforesaid prosecution witnesses, it is urged that they are not reliable witness and they have contradicted each other. Therefore, learned trial Court has erred in convicting and sentencing appellant under section 307 of the IPC on the testimonies of Shubham and Arti Bai. It is also urged that in view of testimony of injured Hiralal, appellant could not have been convicted on the basis of medical testimony alone. It is also urged that in FSL report, only it is mentioned that on the axe, allegedly recovered from appellant, blood has been found. It is not mentioned therein that human blood has been found. On above grounds, it is urged that appeal filed by appellant be allowed and he be acquitted of offence under section 307 of the IPC.

5. Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State submits that Shubham (PW-3) and Arti Bai (PW-4) are eye-witness to the incident and they have supported prosecution story. Further, from FSL report, it is evident that on axe, recovered from appellant, blood has been found. Thus, FSL report supports prosecution story. Learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced appellant. No interference is required in the same. Hence, appeal filed by appellant be dismissed.

6. Learned trial Court vide judgment dated 25.1.2025 passed in S.T.No.98/2022 has convicted and sentenced the appellant under section 307 of IPC with RI for ten years and with fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation.

7. Heard and perused record of the case.

8. So far as injuries found on the person of complainant/injured Hiralal are concerned, from testimony of Hiralal (PW-1), Shubham Gaur (PW-3), Arti Bai (PW-4) and Dr. Danish Patel (PW-7) along with medical reports Ex.P/12 to Ex.P/15 and Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/1), it is clearly established that at alleged date, time and place, injured complainant, Hiralal sustained injuries on the chest as found in the medical reports.

9. Now question arises to whether aforesaid injuries have been caused by appellant/accused ?

10. Perusal of testimony of Hiralal (PW- 1), who is injured and complainant, reveals that he has turned hostile. He has clearly stated in his examination-in-chief that nobody assaulted him and he had fell down and thereby sustained injuries on the chest. Further, he has stated that it is not correct that Jagdish caught hold him from behind and appellant assaulted him with axe on the chest. This witness has contradicted his police statement (Ex.P/3). Further, witness has deposed that it is not correct that he had told police in his police statement (Ex.P/3) that Jagdish caught hold of him and Rohit assaulted him with axe on chest. Injured complainant Hiralal has stated in his cross-examination that there is barbed fencing wire in his house and it is correct that on account of it being night, he got entangled in the barbed wires and fell down and thereby sustained injuries on the chest and Ex.P/1’s report was not