Evidence of witnesses, even when hostile, can support conviction if corroborated sufficiently.

1. FIR (Ex - P / 1) lodged by victim Shobharam (PW - 1) cause to show that on 27.05.2005, in the early morning, when he had come back home from the railway station after making his brother - in - law board the train, the deceased - accused Shobhnath was found hurling abuses by standing near his house. When Shobharam (PW - 1) objected to the abuses hurled by deceased - accused Shobhnath, both the accused persons had scuffled with him and the present accused / appellant took out an axe and dealt a blow on his both arms. As a result of the axe blow inflicted by the present accused / appellant the victim fell down on the ground and blood started oozing from his wound. FIR further indicates that on hearing the screams of the victim, his wife namely Hulaso Bai (PW - 4) rushed to the spot and intervened in the matter. During the course of intervention by Hulaso Bai (PW - 4) the deceased - accused Shobhnath caused a club injury on her left temple, which started bleeding. It is alleged that, on hearing the screams of Shobharam (PW - 1), three persons namely Chaitu @ Chandrapratap (PW - 2), Goverdhan (PW - 6) and Shivprasad (PW - 9) came to the spot and saved the victim from the clutches of the accused - appellants, otherwise they would have killed him. Both Shobharam (PW - 1) and Hulaso Bai (PW - 4) were sent for medical examination which was done by Dr. Ashok Kumar (PW - 11). Orthopedic Surgeon Dr. Ashish Karan (PW - 3) also examined the victim Shobharam (PW - 1) and gave his report (Ex - P / 10) stating that there was fracture on his right shoulder. After completion of investigation, charge - sheet was filed against accused / appellants for the offence under S.307, S.325, S.324, S.34 IPC followed by framing of charges accordingly

2. Learned Court below vide judgment impugned dated 19.12.2007 passed in Sessions Trial No.15/2006 convicted the accused / appellants under S.307/34 and 323/34 of IPC by imposing the sentence on each of them of R.I. for three years with fine of Rs.500/- and R.I. for three months with fine of Rs.200/-, with default stipulations. Hence this appeal.

3. It is relevant to note here that one of the accused namely Shobhnath died during the pendency of this appeal and the appeal in his respect has been dismissed as abated by order dated 06.07.2015, and, therefore, this appeal for the present relates to accused / appellant Om Prakash only.

4. Counsel for the accused / appellant submits that the conviction of the accused / appellant under S.307/34 and 323/34 is not based on proper appreciation of the evidence of the witnesses and, therefore, liable to be set aside. According to the counsel for the accused / appellant that two of the so called eye witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile but even then the Court below has placed implicit reliance on the testimony and held the accused / appellant guilty under S.307/34 and 323/34 of IPC, which is not sustainable in the eye of law. He submits that one Rajesh Kumari who was present on the spot at the relevant time and tried to resolve the dispute between the parties has been given up by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it, otherwise her testimony could have been more beneficial to the accused / appellant.

5. State counsel however supports the judgment impugned and submits that the finding recorded by the Court below are strictly in accordance with law and no infirmity or irregularity can be attributed to the same. He submits that the Court below has already dealt with all the relevant facts and evidence of the witnesses and, therefore, there is no room for an interfere