JUDGMENT This appeal, by the State, is directed against the judgment dated 13-5-2002 passed in S.C.No.77 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry, whereby and whereunder, the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge found accused Ulli Yesu @ Yesubabu not guilty for the offence under Section 307 IPC and acquitted him accordingly. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is:- Accused Ulli Yesu @ Yesubabu and P.W.1 Nallamsetti Venkataramana are residents of Burugupudi and they are neighbours to each other. P.W.2 Poleppali Ramarao is Sarpanch of Burugupudi village. He called the accused on 1-6-2001 to Srirama temple in connection with the boundary dispute between the accused and P.W.1. P.W.1 told P.W.2 that he would come for discussion in the afternoon of the next day. After so saying to P.W.2, he returned home, took carrier and came on road to board a bus. On the way to bus stop, the accused enquired him as to whether he met P.W.2-Polepalli Ramarao. P.W.1 replied the accused that he would meet the Sarpanch on the next day. While P.W.1 was proceeding on road to board the bus, the accused followed him. In the meanwhile, the bus came and the driver of the bus stopped the bus and the conductor opened the door so as to allow the passengers to get into it. While P.W.1 was boarding the bus, the accused hacked him with a long handle hook knife on the back of his head. P. W.1 fell on a cycle that the passing through, on receiving injuries. Thereupon, the accused hacked him on his arms with a knife. While P.W.1 was retrieving, another blow fell on him causing injuries to left middle finger. P.W.1 came to be shifted to Government General Hospital, Rajahmundry by P.W.2 P. Ramarao. P.W.7 Dr. Sudhakar medically examined P.W.1 in the causality ward of District Headquarters Hospital, Rajahumadry on 1-6-2001 at 11.05 A.M. He found the following injuries on his person:- 1. A laceration across the back of the neck measuing 6" x 1/2" X 1/2" red in colour and wet. 2. An irregular laceration on the left middle finger at middle and distal phalanz measuring 11/2" x ¾" with % detachment of distal phalanz, red in colour and wet. 3. An irregular abrasion on the right upper arm on the outer side measuring 1/2" x ¾" superficially placed, red in colour and wet. 4. 2. An irregular laceration on the left middle finger at middle and distal phalanz measuring 11/2" x ¾" with % detachment of distal phalanz, red in colour and wet. 3. An irregular abrasion on the right upper arm on the outer side measuring 1/2" x ¾" superficially placed, red in colour and wet. 4. An irregular laceration below the left eye measuring 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/6" red in colour and wet. 5. An irregular laceration on the left, shoulder measuring 1/4" x 1/4" superficial, red and wet". 3. P.W.7 sent EX.P-9 Hospital intimation to the police with regard to admission of P.W.1 in the hospital with injuries. EX.P-10 is the wound certificate issued by him. P.W.9 V.S.S. Narayana Murthy, Head Constable in Police Outpost, Rajahmundry received EX.P-9 intimation from the Medical Officer and rushed to the causality ward and recorded the statement of P.W.1 EX.P-1 is the statement of P.W.1 recorded by him. He sent Exs.P-1 statement of P.W.1 and EX.P-9 hospital intimation to the S.H.O., Korukonda P.S. P.W.10-M. Venkateswararao, S.I. of Police, Korukonda P.S., received Exs.P-1 and P-9 and registered a case in Crime No.36 of 2001 for the offence under Section 307 IPC and issued EX.P-11 FIR He Inspected the scene and prepared EX.P-6 observation report and EX.P-12 rough sketch of the scene in the presence of P.W.6-Anadasu Venkata Surya Narayana Murthy and L.W.-12-Nanduri Subramanya Markandeyulu. While observing the scene, he affected seizure of blood stained earth, control earth, steel carrier and a plastic cove (Mos 2 to 4). He examined P.Ws.2 to 5 and recorded their statements under Section 161 CLP.C. He visited Government General Hospital, Rajahmundry and recorded the statement of P.W.1 and seized blood-stained clothes, which have been exhibited as M.Os.5 and 6. He arrested the accused on 2-6-2001 and interrogated him in the presence of P.W.6 and another. The accused made confession of the offence and produced M.O.1-weapon used in the commission of the offence and the same came to be seized under the cover of Ex.P-8 panchanama. P.W.10 sent M.O.1 -weapon, bloodstained earth and bloodstained clothes to F.S.L., Visakhapatnam. Ex.P-13 is the report sent by F.S.L., Visakhapatnam. After completing the investigation, he laid a charge sheet in the Court of III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry. 4. P.W.10 sent M.O.1 -weapon, bloodstained earth and bloodstained clothes to F.S.L., Visakhapatnam. Ex.P-13 is the report sent by F.S.L., Visakhapatnam. After completing the investigation, he laid a charge sheet in the Court of III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry. 4. The learned Magistrate took the charge sheet on file as P.R.C. No. 36 of 2001 and committed the case to the Sessions Division, East Godavari at Rajahmundry as the offence under Section 307 IPC is exclusively triable by Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry took the case on file as S.C. No. 77 of2002 and made over the same to the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry for disposal according to law. 5. On appearance of the accused and on hearing the prosecution and the accused, the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge framed a charge under Section 307 IPC, read over and explained to the accused, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence with which he stood charged, prosecution examined 10 witnesses and proved 13 documents and exhibited 6 material objects. The learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, on appreciation of the evidence brought on record and on hearing the prosecution and the accused, found the accused not guilty for the offence under Section 307 IPC and acquitted him accordingly, by judgment dated 13-5-2002. Hence, this appeal by the State. 7. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant-State and learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused. 8. Learned Additional Public prosecutor submits that P.W.1 is an injured witness and his testimony is supported by medical evidence, and therefore acquittal of the respondent-accused for the offence under Section 307 IPC is not legal and proper and instead, he is found to be guilty for the offence under Section 307 IPC. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor took me to the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 7 to convince that the appreciation of the evidence brought on record by the trial Court is perverse. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused submits that the trial Court has considered the evidence brought on record in a right perspective and recorded acquittal of the respondent-accused for the offence under Section 307 IPC by giving cogent and convincing reasons and therefore, the judgment of acquittal does not warrant interference in this appeal. 10. P.W.1 is the injured. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused submits that the trial Court has considered the evidence brought on record in a right perspective and recorded acquittal of the respondent-accused for the offence under Section 307 IPC by giving cogent and convincing reasons and therefore, the judgment of acquittal does not warrant interference in this appeal. 10. P.W.1 is the injured. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevance and efficacy. The fact that the witness sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. Though the prosecution examined P.Ws.2 to 5 as witnesses to the occurrence, they did not support the prosecution version and the prosecution declared them hostile and marked their 161 Cr.P.C. statements as Exs.P-2 to P-5. P.W.6 is the panch witness for the observation of the scene and seizure of M.O.1 weapon pursuant to the disclosure statement of the accused. P.W.7 Dr. Sudhakar medically examined P.W1 on 1-6-2001 at 10-50 A.M. and issued EX.P-10 wound certificate. P.W.8 is the witness to speak of the dispute between the accused and P.W.1 in connection with the fencing between their houses. P.W.9 is the Head Constable, who received EX.P-9 Hospital intimation from the Medical Officer and rushed to the casualty ward and recorded the statement of P.W.1. P.W.10 is the Investigating Officer. 11. The entire case rests on the solitary testimony of P.W.1. It is the version ofP.W.1 that on the date of the incident, he was proceeding to the bus stop and at that time, the accused came and hacked him. His version as stated by him in the chief examination in his own words reads as hereunder:- "I replied the accused that I went to the Sarpanch and told him that I would come on the next day. I was proceeding on the road. The accused was following me. A bus coming opposite was stopped by the driver on seeing me. The conductor of the bus opened the door. When I was boarding the bus, the accused hacked me with a long handle book knife. I received injury on the back of my head. On receiving that injury, I fell on a cycle passing by. Then the accused hacked me on my arms with the knife. When I was tying to protect myself, I also received injury on my left middle finger. I received injury on the back of my head. On receiving that injury, I fell on a cycle passing by. Then the accused hacked me on my arms with the knife. When I was tying to protect myself, I also received injury on my left middle finger. While hacking me, the accused uttered 'CHAVARA LANJAKODAKA'. On receiving injuries, I lost consciousness. The then Sarpanch Polepalli Ramarao and present Sarpanch Ramarao joined me in Govt. Hospital, Rajahmundry, While I was in the hospital, police came to me. Police recorded my statement I affixed my thumb impression on the said statement. EX.P-1 is my statement recorded by the police." 12. In Ex.P-1 statement, he stated that the accused came on a bicycle. The contradiction in Ex.P-1 statement came to be recorded as Ex.D-1. P.W.7 is the doctor, who medically examined P.W.I. He noticed five lacerated injuries on his person. He admits in cross-examination that P.W.1 did not receive any incised wound or stabbed wound. He also admits in cross-examination that if a curved weapon is used, it will leave a crescent shaped injury on the body if the entire edge of the weapon came in contact with the body. But, he did not find any such injury. The medical evidence contradicts the version of P.W.1. The trial Court has noticed this inconsistency and proceeded to record acquittal of the respondent-accused for the offence under Section 307 IPC. For better appreciation, I may refer para (21) of the judgment impugned in the appeal, which reads as hereunder:- "21. The nature of the injuries sustained by P.W.1 the weapon alleged to have been used and the allegation that the accused was coming on a cycle show inconsistency among them. For better appreciation, I may refer para (21) of the judgment impugned in the appeal, which reads as hereunder:- "21. The nature of the injuries sustained by P.W.1 the weapon alleged to have been used and the allegation that the accused was coming on a cycle show inconsistency among them. The learned counsel for the accused points out that the weapon used is a heavy knife used for cutting branches; that when a blow was given with such a knife it would cause a very serious injury and it does not leave with the nature of injuries noticed and described by the Medical Officer; that the injury on the left milled finger is not proved to be a grievous injury; that X-ray was not produced; that none of the injuries is either incised wound or cut wound, which could be caused by a sharp edged weapon like M.O.1 and that all the injuries found on the person of P.W.1 could have been caused by a fall from a moving bus". 13. Since the medical evidence contradicts the version of P.W.1, the trial Court is justified in recording acquittal of the respondent accused for the offence under Section 307 Ire. Therefore, I do not see any valid ground to interfere with the acquittal of the respondent accused for the offence under Section 307 Ire. 14. In the result, the Criminal Appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.