JUDGEMENT

This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.05.2001 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Session Trial No.301/2000. By the impugned judgment the trial Court has convicted the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and sentenced him to undergo one year RI with fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of fine, RI of six months.

(2) Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 24.06.2000, in the evening at about 6.30 pm, appellant - Kalji @ Sureshchandra assaulted the complainant - Sonu @ Indrajeet by knife and at that time, the incident was seen by Babulal and Mohammad Salim.

Complainant - Sonu has lodged the FIR in Police-Station- Mahipur, District - Ujjain. Thereafter the police lodged a case under Section 307 of IPC against the accused/appellant and referred the complainant for medical treatment and after due investigation, police has filed the chargesheet under Section 307 of IPC before the Sessions Court.

(3) The trial Court framed charges against the appellant which was denied by the appellant and the trial Court found the appellant guilty under Section 324 of IPC and convicted him, as aforesaid.

(4) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant being aggrieved with the aforesaid impugned judgment has filed this appeal and has submitted that the trial Court has committed error in law and facts in convicting the appellant under Section 324 of IPC. There is no reliable evidence on record and the appellant has inflicted the injury by knife on the body of complainant. It is further submitted that there are so many contradictions and omissions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and prosecution evidence is not supported by medical evidence. Under these grounds, learned counsel for the appellant prays for setting aside the impugned judgment and acquittal of appellant.

(5) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State has supported the impugned judgment of trial Court and prays for allowing of this appeal.

(6) Now the question arises whether the trial Court has committed any error while convicting the appellant under Section 324 of IPC ? (7) After hearing the rival parties at length and on perusal of the record, it was found that Dr. R.S. Chauhan (PW/7) has examined the complainant/victim – Sonu on 24.06.2000 and has found injuries on the body of injured/complainant. Dr. S.K. Tanwar (PW/3) has also examined the complainant and has found incise wound on his right shoulder and incise wound on the right side of chest and he has stated that both the injuries are caused by sharp edged weapons within three hours of examination.

(8) Hence, after considering the evidence of medical expert and complainant of Sonu (PW/1), it is found that on the date of incident i.e. on 24.06.2000, complainant (PW/1) has received the injuries on his body by sharp object. Now the question arises whether the injury was caused with an intention to kill the victim voluntary.

(9) Sonu @ Indrajeet (PW/1) has stated in his evidence that the incident has occurred on 24.06.2000 at about 6:30 pm, when he went to the shop of appellant and had asked for his money then appellant abuses filthy and assaulted by knife on his right shoulder and right side of the chest and thereafter he lodged an FIR against the accused/appellant.

(10) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that eye-witness Babulal (PW/2), Kripal (PW/4) and Salim (PW/8) was declared hostile and has not supported the prosecution story.

(11) It is true that these witnesses are not supporting the case of prosecution evidence of complainant but it is a settled law that it is not always necessary that prosecution evidence should be supported by the evidence of independent witness.

(12) In this case, it w