JUDGMENT 1. - Having felt aggrieved from the judgment dated 20.4.1996, of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, Camp Aklera, Ismile Khan has preferred this appeal under Section 374 Cr.PC., whereby the trial court has convicted him under Section 307, 326 and 324 I.RC. and sentenced to urdergo 10 year R.l. and a fine of Rs. 5000/- under the first count, 10 year R.l. and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under the second count, and 1 year R.l. and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-under the third court. It was directed that the substantive sentence shall run concurrently. 2. The matter relates to an occurrence which took place on 2.11.1993, at about 7 a.m. in village Chhan. The prosecution case is that Salim was taking milk from Jaldhar, when the accused went there, having an axe in his hand. He inflicted multiple injuries to Salim. The first information report of the occurrence, Ex.R 1 was lodged at 6.30 p.m., which was in the form of 'Parcha Bayan', wherein Salim stated that the accused had inflicted axe blow to his 1 head and other parts of the body in order to cause his death. The police inspected the site, interrogated the witnesses and arrested the accused. The injuries of Salim, were examined by P.W. 5 Dr. Ramesh Chandra Dube, who prepared the injury report Ex.P. 3. The prosecution examined P.W. 1 Salim, P.W. 2 Hakila Bai, P.W. 3 Amin Khan, P.W. 4 Alam Khan, P.W. 5 Dr. Ramesh Chandra Dube, P.W. 6 Sunat Bai, RW. 7 Anwar Khan, P.W. 8 Madan, P.W. 9 Mohd. Sharif and RW. 10 Bhanwar Singh. Accused in his statement did not examine any witness in defence. The learned Judge of the trial court held that the accused had caused simple and grievous injuries to Salim in an attempt to cause his death and, therefore, he convicted and sentenced him as stated above. 3. The contention of Mr. Sharma was that the trial court has committed error in placing reliance on the testimony of RW. 7 Anwarkhan and P.W. 6 Sunat Bai, who, according to him, were not present at the scene of occurrence. He further contended that the prosecution has not examined important witness Jaldar and, therefore, no reliance ought to have been placed on the testimony of Salim. 4. The learned P.P. supported the judgment of the trial court. 5. 7 Anwarkhan and P.W. 6 Sunat Bai, who, according to him, were not present at the scene of occurrence. He further contended that the prosecution has not examined important witness Jaldar and, therefore, no reliance ought to have been placed on the testimony of Salim. 4. The learned P.P. supported the judgment of the trial court. 5. I have gone through the evidence produced in the case. It has to be accepted that P.W. 7 Anwarkhan and RW. 6 Sunat Bai were not present at the time of occurrence.The presence of Sunat, wife of the injured at the time of occurrence is not disclosed even by P.W. 1 Salim. P.W. 2 Hakila Bai also does not give clear statement with regard to the presence of sunat Bai. Sunat Bai deposes that she had gone to the place of occurrence after hearing the cries of her husband. The occurrence had taken place near the bus stand. It is not the prosecution case that the house of Salim was situated near the bus stand. In the site plan Ex.P. 12 the house of Salim, had not been shown. It is the thus obvious that Sunat Bai could not see the occurrence sitting in her house nor could she hear the cries and reach the spot when incident was taking place. It 3 is further noticed that Sunat Bai had not stated before the police in her statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. that the accused had caused injuries to the head of Salim, which shows that Sunat Bai, had not seen the occurrence.The same is true for P.W. 7 Anwarkhan, Anwarkhan admits that he and Sunat Bai had reached the place of occurrence together. This witness had not : stated before the police under Section 161 Cr. P.C. (Ex.D. 2) that he had seen the accused causing injuries on the head of Salim. Anwarkhan admits that Salim is his uncle. It is obvious that he has given the evidence because of relationship, though he had not seen the occurrence. 6. Now remain the statements of Salim P.W. 1 and Hakila Bai P.W. 2. Salim says that as he was taking milk, accused went there, having an axe in his hand and inflicted an injury to his head by the sharp side of the axe and after he fell down, the accused caused more injuries. 6. Now remain the statements of Salim P.W. 1 and Hakila Bai P.W. 2. Salim says that as he was taking milk, accused went there, having an axe in his hand and inflicted an injury to his head by the sharp side of the axe and after he fell down, the accused caused more injuries. He further says that Hakila Bai, his sister was also there. To the same effect is the statement of RW. 2 Smt. Hakila Bai. She says that she had gone to the bus stand and there she had seen the accused causing injuries by axe to her brother Salim. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the statements of Salim and Hakila Bai. The presence of Salim and Hakila Bai was disclosed even in the F.I.R. 7. Nothing has appeared in the cross-examination of Salim as to discard his testimony. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused has come out with a case that because of some land dispute, he had been falsely implicated. However, no question in this regard was asked in the cross-examination of Salim, which shows that plea of the accused is an after thought. A question with regard to the dispute of the land was certainly put to Sunat Bai, when she was examined some two months after the statement of Salim was recorded. Sunat Bai emphatically denies that some land was allotted to the accused and Salim was in possession of the land. The accused has not led any evidence to support his plea. Therefore, it has to be accepted that there was absolutely to cause for Salim to have falsely implicated the accused in this case. 8. The evidence of Salim is corroborated by the medical evidence contained in the statement of Dr. Ramesh Chandra Dube, P.W. 5, who says that he had examined the injuries of Salim at 11.05 a.m. and he had found five incised wounds which were on the right palm, right elbow, left arm, right parietal bone and sixth vertebra region. Dr. Dube opines that the injury to the head was of the grievous nature and injuries suffered by Salim were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He also says that there were fractures on the right elbow and right palm. There is no cross-examination of Dr. Dube. Dr. Dube opines that the injury to the head was of the grievous nature and injuries suffered by Salim were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He also says that there were fractures on the right elbow and right palm. There is no cross-examination of Dr. Dube. It is, therefore, fully established that the injuries suffered by Salim were of grievous nature and injuries were such which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 9. As a result of the above discussion, it has to be held that the trial court has not erred in holding the accused guilty under Section 307, 326 and 324 IPC. 10. The trial court has awarded separate sentences for three offences. As a matter of fact, when the accused was convicted under Section 307 IPC, and the charge under Section 307 IPC was found to have been established due to the injuries, it was not necessary to impose separate sentences under Section 326 and 324 IPC. 11. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Section 326, 307 and 324 IPC, the sentences passed under Section 326 and 324 IPC are set-aside, the sentence passed by the trial Court under Section 307 IPC is affirmed.Appeal is partly allowed. *******