JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the conviction for the offences punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.3000/ - in default to suffer R.I. for six months in Sessions Case no. 31 of 2011 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir on 4.5.2012, the present Appeal is preferred by the original accused. 2. The case in short is as under:- That P.W. no.1 Sandhya Mudpe, the victim of the offence has her own private clinic at Gudsur, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. On 26.1.2011 while she was in her clinic alongwith her son Rushikesh-P.W.2, at about 7:15 p.m. in the evening, the present appellant Bapurao suddenly came in the clinic with a long steel sickle (Koyta) in his hand. At that time, he started questioning the complainant-Sandhya, as to why she had not got married his daughter to the brother of the complainant. During the said incident, he assaulted the complainant with the aid of the sickle. He gave four blows on the backside of the head. When the complainant started defending her, she received blows over both her hands, her legs as well as palm, elbows, calves, wrist, left knee, both thighs and at other places. She was thus seriously injured in the incident. The appellant also thrown away P.W.2 Rushikesh, i.e. son of the complainant out of the clinic. In the meantime, P.W.5 Parmanand Jadhav, who resides in the neighbourhood as well as others came there. They mediated. Ultimately, complainant-Sandhya was admitted to the hospital of Dr. Chambule, wherein inter alia she was treated by P.W.6-Dr. Shriniwas Balshetwar. The complaint regarding the incident was recorded in the said hospital on the same day at about 11.00 in the night and the offence, as supra came to be registered. 3. P.W.8 P.I. Mukund Deshmukh recorded the said F.I.R. (Exhibit 26). The P.I. came to know that the present appellant was also found in injured condition in front of Vyankatesh Clinic and was taken to Sub District Hospital for treatment. The injury certificate regarding him was collected. Thereafter, the P.I. recorded panchanama of the spot of occurrence i.e. Vyankatesh Hospital. The weapon of the offence i.e. sickle was seized from the spot. The photographer i.e. P.W.7 Sanjay Kadojee was called who obtained the photographs of the place of occurrence. Some relevant articles were seized from the spot. The injury certificate regarding him was collected. Thereafter, the P.I. recorded panchanama of the spot of occurrence i.e. Vyankatesh Hospital. The weapon of the offence i.e. sickle was seized from the spot. The photographer i.e. P.W.7 Sanjay Kadojee was called who obtained the photographs of the place of occurrence. Some relevant articles were seized from the spot. Thereafter, the P.I. recorded the statements of various witnesses, including that of P.W.5-Parmanand Jadhav. The appellant was arrested. The injury certificate was collected from the hospital, where the complainant had taken treatment and after carrying other usual investigation like sending blood stained clothes to the Chemical Analyzer, the chargesheet came to be filed. 4. Before the learned Sessions Judge, in all eight (8) witnesses were examined. Out of them, P.W.3 Rajkumat Dhyade and P.W.4-Shivaji Mehtre, panch to the recording of the panchanama turned hostile. While P.W.1-Sandhya and P.W.2-Rushikesh deposed about the actual start of the incident and the fact of assaulting P.W.1-Sandhya, P.W.5-Parmanand Jadhav, being the neighbour, narrated about his mediation in the assault by the appellant. He also deposed that after reliving the complainant from the hands of the appellant, he has taken the complainant to the hospital of Dr. Chambule by auto-rickshaw and got admitted there. P.W.6-Dr. Shrinivas spoke about the nature of the injuries observed by him on the person of the complainant and pointed towards various case papers and injury certificate at Exhibit 46 etc. P.W.7-Sanjay Kadojee is the photographer, who has deposed about taking the photographs of the spot of occurrence and pointed towards the photographs obtained by him through digital camera exhibit 52 to 55 respectively. P.W.8-Mukund has deposed about the course of investigation carried by him. 5. On the basis of this evidence, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the appellant, with an intention to commit the murder of complainant Dr. Sandhya, with preparation entered her clinic and assaulted her to the extent of attempting to commit her murder and therefore, the conviction as well as the sentence, as detailed supra came to be recorded. 6. The defence of the appellant was that in fact, the daughter namely Chhaya had married with the brother of the complainant, however, the couple could not carryon well. 6. The defence of the appellant was that in fact, the daughter namely Chhaya had married with the brother of the complainant, however, the couple could not carryon well. The brother of the complainant has also married with one Premlata, out of which also certain criminal cases were filed by said Premlata against the present complainant, her parents and other relatives for the offence punishable under section 498-A of the I.P.C. Chhaya had also filed criminal proceedings for the offences punishable under section 409, 498-A of the I.P.C. against the present complainant and her brother at Devni. Further, the petition under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act was also filed. All these proceedings were pending against the complainant. Certain settlement in between had taken place between the another wife of the complainant's brother namely Premlata and her husband. In fact, on the date of the alleged incident, the complainant had herself called the appellant to her clinic. When the appellant went there, the complainant through certain other persons severally beat the appellant and the appellant did not assault the complainant. It was further suggested that as Dr. Chambule belongs to the same profession of the complainant, she got herself admitted there, out of certain simple injuries that might have been caused by some persons from the side of the husband of the complainant with whom she had dispute. Further, the present appellant is falsely involved in the case. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant Mrs. Reddy took me through the entire evidence and submitted that the learned Sessions Judge failed to take into consideration the fact of deep animosity between the complainant and the appellant on one hand and between the complainant and her in-laws on the other hand admitted by her. Further, the contradiction regarding the motive are not taken into consideration. P.W.5 Parmanand Jadhav though tried to be shown as independent witness, is in fact interested in the cause. There are sharp contradictions in the statement of the complainant P.W.1-Sandhya, her son P.W.2 Rushikesh and P.W.5 Parmanand and in the circumstances, submitting that got up case was framed against him in collusion with private doctors, Mrs. Reddy wanted that the Appeal be allowed. 8. There are sharp contradictions in the statement of the complainant P.W.1-Sandhya, her son P.W.2 Rushikesh and P.W.5 Parmanand and in the circumstances, submitting that got up case was framed against him in collusion with private doctors, Mrs. Reddy wanted that the Appeal be allowed. 8. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. submits that the nature of the injuries found on the person of the complainant coupled with her own statement corroborated by child witness i.e. P.W.2 Rushikesh and eye witness P.W.5-Parmanand Jadhav were sufficient for the learned Sessions Judge to come to the conclusion that the charge has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 9. On the basis of this material, following issues arise for my determination:- I) Whether the prosecution has proved that on 26.01.2012 at about 7:15 p.m. in Vyankatesh Clinic at Gudsur, Udgir, the present appellant caused injury to the complainant, of such a nature and in such circumstances, that if by that act, the death of the complainant would have been caused that the appellant would have been guilty of the murder? II) What order? My finding to point no. (I) is in the affirmative. The Appeal is therefore dismissed. REASONS: 10. Mrs. Reddy in detail submitted as under:- While in the FIR P.W.1 Sandhya has described the appellant as father of the girl questioning the complainant as to why she did not allow to marry her brother to the daughter, in the examination in chief itself she has deposed that the appellant also started demanding money and thereafter he assaulted her. Thus, the improvement is writ large in the evidence of this interested witness. The cross-examination of the complainant as well as the documents filed by the appellant would however show that while the complainant Sandhya was already engaged in criminal dispute against her husband, she was also involved in the prosecution under section 498-A of the I.P.C. filed by Premlata i.e. one of the wife of her brother and another by Chhaya i.e. daughter of the appellant. In the circumstances, there was no question of questioning the complainant as to why she has not permitted her brother to marry the daughter of the appellant. Therefore, the very motive that is alleged by the prosecution fails. 11. In the circumstances, there was no question of questioning the complainant as to why she has not permitted her brother to marry the daughter of the appellant. Therefore, the very motive that is alleged by the prosecution fails. 11. It was further submitted that the evidence of the complainant as well as her son regarding the presence of the son is very much doubtful as different story is given as to whether the son was thrown away out of the clinic by the appellant as was stated by the complainant-P.W.1, which was not even deposed to by the very son. It was further submitted that this child witness i.e. 10 years old P.W.2 Rushikesh even denied the fact that present appellant is father of Chhaya and as such it can very well be found that the witness is tutored. 12. As regards P.W.5 Parmanad, the eye witness, it was pointed out that the complainant in her cross-examination stated that the witness used to come to her clinic since preceding five to six years, but was not her patient. This witness in his examination in chief however itself deposed that he was visiting the dispensary of the complainant as her patient. Further, the complainant has deposed that a curtain was placed between her place of sitting and waiting space of patients, P.W.5 specifically deposed that there was no such curtain to the partition just to show that this witness has witnessed the incident. Further, while this witness has stated that he has heard the cry ^^vkSjr dks ekj jgs gSaaA^^ i.e. (lady is being beaten). The complainant's son P.W.2 deposed that he cried as ^^vkbZyk okpok^^ i.e. (save my mother). It was further pointed by Mrs. Reddy that the prosecution case itself would reveal that the present appellant was found lying injured opposite Vyankatesh Clinic run by the complainant and was admitted by the Police. The admission certificate collected by the Police at Exhibit 60 and further injury certificate is filed on record. P.W. 5 Parmanand in his cross-examination avoided to state anything about this fact by saying that he did not know whether any person or the complainant lady beat the appellant in front of the clinic or as to whether he had fallen unconscious opposite the said clinic. P.W. 5 Parmanand in his cross-examination avoided to state anything about this fact by saying that he did not know whether any person or the complainant lady beat the appellant in front of the clinic or as to whether he had fallen unconscious opposite the said clinic. Further, though this witness was categoric in stating that for the first time he had seen the appellant, no test identification parade was held and these facts, according to Mrs. Reddy would go to show that highly interested witness being involved in the case, the learned Sessions Judge ought to have extended the benefit of doubt. 13. Certain further submissions regarding the contradictions in the statement regarding the colour of the clothes worn by the appellant, absence of negatives of the photographs claimed to have been drawn by P.W.7, obtaining the alleged photographs after the taking away the sickle, non labelling of the articles were pressed into service. It was further pointed out that while the sickle (Koyata) in question is a crescent shaped weapon, as is clear from the list of the articles seized at Exhibit 62, while sending the articles to Chemical Analyzer, it was described as a Katti and not Koyta. Further, pointing out that the complainant was never admitted to any Government hospital and was admitted at private hospital, wherein even the injury certificate at Exhibit 45 does not contain any history of assaulting by anybody. Further, differences in the number of the injuries as to whether nine injuries were caused or seven injuries were caused and certain injuries were not shown in the case papers versus the injury certificate, it was submitted that the injury certificate may not be believed. Further, on the basis of the case papers of the hospital filed on record by the prosecution which would show that the condition of the complainant Sandhya was admittedly from stable to good to healthy, it was argued that the charge framed under section 307 of the I.P.C., ultimate conviction on this count would not be justified. Further, none of the injury was "dangerous injury" and hence on all these counts, it was submitted that the Appeal be allowed. 14. Before appreciating the arguments of Mrs. Reddy, it is necessary to peruse as to what injuries were found by P.W.6 Dr. Shrinivas Balshetwar, as evidenced by the injury certificate Exhibit 46. Further, none of the injury was "dangerous injury" and hence on all these counts, it was submitted that the Appeal be allowed. 14. Before appreciating the arguments of Mrs. Reddy, it is necessary to peruse as to what injuries were found by P.W.6 Dr. Shrinivas Balshetwar, as evidenced by the injury certificate Exhibit 46. This injury certificate shows that the complainant was examined on 26.1.2011 and following injuries were found by him on the person of the complainant : 1) (L) Patella Gr. III a Comp.II 2) (L) Elbow Gr III a comp # olectanon capitulum coupled with multiple flexortendon cut at its origin 3) (L) Hand Volar aspect of thumb & tenolon urt flexor 4) (L) Hand 2nd, 3rd, 4th finger at base volar aspect with flexor tendon int 5) (R) Hand partial Amputation from 3rd web space till fold of wrist jt coupled with tendon newe artery cut 6) (R) 2/3rd forearm volaraspect 7) (L) Thigh – CLWs 8) (R) Thigh - one CLW 9) Head injury - Two CLWs bone deep It may be noted that the Doctor has given the details of these nine injuries found on the person of the complainant. It was suggested to this witness that the complainant had good relations with this hospital where the Doctor was working. Therefore, various discrepancies like writing post operative notes, wherein time is mentioned as 1.30 a.m., while Exhibit 48 dated 27.1.2011 shows time as 1.30 pm. are there. Further, certain difference in the colour of the ink while writing the clinical history regarding the time, as 7.30 p.m. is given. While in the case papers, seven injuries are noted, the injury certificate shows that nine injuries were there. Thus, there is difference between Exhibit 48 and Exhibit 46. 15. It should, however, be noted that at the time of admission of the patient, the main concern of the Medical Officer is first to take into account the immediate need of the patient and start treating him. This is specifically understood in the background of the serious and grievous injuries, as noted supra. When there is nothing on record to show that P.W.6 Dr. This is specifically understood in the background of the serious and grievous injuries, as noted supra. When there is nothing on record to show that P.W.6 Dr. Shrinivas had any close relations with the complainant P.W.1, the minor discrepancy here and there would not make us to believe that there were no injuries on the person of the complainant or that certain injuries are falsely described, either in the injury certificate or in the case papers. 16. As regards the motive, while in the immediate complaint, when the complainant-injured has described that the motive of assault was the questioning by the appellant, as to why the complainant did not allow her brother to marry with his daughter, certain other additions in the statement before the Court, that the appellant was also asking for some money is there. The evidence placed by both sides and more particularly, the appellant, however, would clearly show that the matrimonial dispute between the brother of the complainant and the daughter of the appellant was going on, in the background of certain other lady Premlata claiming to be the wife of the brother of the complainant. In this situation, and more particularly, when the complainant herself is injured coupled with the corroboration from one eye witness, certain variation in the statements regarding the motive would not make us to disbelieve the entire prosecution case. 17. As regards the presence or absence of the son of the complainant i.e. P.W.2-Rushikesh, it is to be noted that it is not the prosecution case that he has suffered any injuries. In the circumstances, when the complainant deposed that the son was thrown away from clinic by the appellant, which is not deposed to by this child witness, would not make us to disbelieve the case of the prosecution that P.W.2-Rushikesh was present in the hospital, witnessing the incident. This is particularly to be appreciated in the background of the immediate statement of the complainant in the FIR at Exhibit 26, which would show that her son Rushikesh was thrown away and kept outside of her clinic by the appellant. 18. This is particularly to be appreciated in the background of the immediate statement of the complainant in the FIR at Exhibit 26, which would show that her son Rushikesh was thrown away and kept outside of her clinic by the appellant. 18. As regards the injuries found on the person of the appellant, in the background of his defence that he was called at the clinic of the complainant for settlement and was beaten, the record would show that immediately after the incident, he was found in injured condition opposite to the clinic of the complainant. The nature of the injuries on his person as evidenced by Exhibit 64, would show that the appellant has sustained one wound on his right shin of tibia and on occipital region scalp. Much arguments were advanced that these injuries found on the person of the appellant were not explained. 19. In the teeth of the number of grievous injuries found on the person of the complainant, if the injuries found on the person of the appellant are seen, the defence that the appellant was called at the clinic for compromise and thereafter was severely beaten by several people, does not fit in the things. It is the prosecution case that upon hearing the scream of the complainant, about 30-40 persons gathered at the spot. Out of them, one was P.W.5-Parmanand Jadhav. In the circumstances, when the mob had gathered at the spot, and found that the appellant was assaulting the complainant with dangerous weapon, the injuries found on the person of the appellant as noted supra, need not be explained, as the complainant may not be aware as to what the mob has done later on. P.W.5 Parmanand had immediately taken the complainant-injured to the hospital and therefore, he cannot be expected to be aware as to what has occurred to the appellant when the mob had gathered there. 20. As to whether P.W.5 Parmanand Jadhav was the patient or not and also as to whether the appellant was coming as patient to the clinic of the complainant, are the minor issues which in the teeth of the statement of the complainant, corroborated by the injuries found on her person would not raise a serious doubt about the occurrence of the incident. 21. The defence could not shatter the prosecution case that P.W.5-Parmanand resides in the vicinity of the clinic. 21. The defence could not shatter the prosecution case that P.W.5-Parmanand resides in the vicinity of the clinic. No serious interest could be attributed to him and in this view of the matter, the issue as to whether, he used to visit the clinic as the patient or not, would not be of much importance. 22. As regards the holding of test identification parade, so that P.W.5-Parmanand could have identified the appellant, as he has stated that for the first time, he had seen the appellant in the clinic of the complainant, in my view, is not required. According to the prosecution case, the incident has occurred in a broad day light and continued for certain period, and therefore, non-holding of the test identification parade is not material. 23. Absence of any negatives of the photographs taken by P.W.7 has been very well explained in the cross-examination itself, as the witness has testified that the photographs were taken through the digital camera. Whether sickle was already taken away after the spot panchanama and therefore, the same could not be found in the photographs are but minor issues. Similar is the case when the weapon i.e. sickle (Koyata) is by mistake described as Katti in the list of articles sent to the Chemical Analyzer. 24. It is further to be noted that the learned Sessions Judge has opportunity to note the demeanor of the witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge has believed the statement of the injured-complainant, corroborated by statement of her son P.W.2-Rushikesh and neighbour P.W.S-Parmanand Jadhav. 25. In that view of the matter, I do not find any force in the submissions that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the alleged offence. 26. The issue as to whether the offence was an attempt to commit murder or the offence punishable under section 326 or 324 of the I.P.C., would not survive in the teeth of the injuries found on the person of the complainant-P.W.1, as noted supra. Merely because, the case papers show that the condition of the complainant was some time "stable", "good" and "healthy", the very nature of the injuries coupled with the prosecution case that the appellant attempted to give four blows on the backside of the head of the complainant, which were warded off would establish the offence punishable under section 307 of I.P.C. 27. In that view of the matter, the offence punishable under section 307 of the I.P.C. is made out. 28. In the circumstances, the Appeal is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.