A conviction under Section 307 IPC is unsustainable if medical evidence establishes that the injuries caused were simple, not grievous, and not capable of causing death, necessitating a reclassification of the offense to Section 324 IPC.

Order on Board

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 25.10.2016 passed in Sessions Case No. 11 of 2016 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh, District: Raigarh (C.G.) wherein, the Appellant has been convicted under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,500/- in default of payment of fine amount additional RI for 5 months.

2. According to the case of prosecution, on 01.01.2016, the complainant Chandrakant Bariha lodged a report at Police Station: Dongripali, alleging that on same day, while his brother Chetan Bariha was returning from picnic, at that time, the accused-appellant abused him with filthy language and inflicted grievous injury by stone. Thereafter, FIR was registered against the appellant and offence under Section 294 and 307 of IPC was registered against the appellant. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed. To robe the Appellant in the crime-in-question prosecution examined as many as total 10 witnesses. In the statement of Appellant recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, Appellant pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter, however no defence witness was examined by the Appellant. After completion of trial, Trial Court convicted and sentenced the Appellant as mentioned in Para 01 of this judgment. Hence this appeal.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the injury caused to the victim is simple in nature, there is no bony injury caused to the victim and after the incident the victim/injured was admitted in Government Hospital only for one day and no such grievous injury has been found as defined under Section 320 of the IPC, therefore, impugned conviction under Section 307 of the IPC is unsustainable in the eye of law, which deserves to be set aside.

4. On the contrary, learned counsel for the State has supported the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court and contended that Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and convicted the appellant.

5. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

6. Prosecution witness, particularly, PW-2 Chetan Bariha deposed that on the date of incident, after picnic, he was going to home, at that time, the accused-appellant abused him with filthy language and inflicted him with stone on face and head of the victim. It is pertinent to mention here that PW-2 Chetan Bariha has admitted in his cross-examination in Para No. 18 that on the date of incident, he had consumed liquor.

7. Dr. Sanjay Patel (PW-7) has examined the victim on 01.01.2016 and found following injuries: 1. There is a Swelling with pain in TM Joint. 2. Lacerated wound on lower limb size 3 x 2 cm. 3. Abrasion on left side of face size 3 x 3 cm. His MLC report is Ex.P-8, thereafter, he referred the patient for further treatment in Raigarh District Hospital.

8. Dr. Kameshwar Singh (PW-1) is General Surgeon has deposed that on X-Ray he found that there is no bony injury caused to the victim. X-Ray report is Ex.P/2. In his cross-examination, he stated that there is no internal injury caused to the victim.

9. It is crystal clear from the evidence that none of the Doctor who has examined the injured had given any such report that the i