JUDGMENT S.G. Shah, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. M.B. Rana for the appellant and learned APP Ms. Reeta Chandarana for the respondent - State. 2. The appellant has challenged the legality and correctness of his conviction u/s. 307 of the IPC and section 135 of the Bombay Police Act by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Palanpur in Sessions Case No. 60 of 2007, whereby he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 3000/-, and in default of payment of fine, further imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable u/s. 307 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default of payment of fine, further imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable u/s. 135 of the B.P. Act by impugned judgment dated 4.11.2009. The story of prosecution case and history of investigation is well described in the impugned judgment as well as in pleading, and therefore, it is not reproduced. The jail record shows that appellant has not been released on bail while admitting this appeal, which was filed after delay of 726 days, but when the appellant was temporarily released on bail by order dated 13.6.2012 for 30 days, the appellant had absconded and was ultimately arrested by the police only after 1424 days i.e. after four years. Therefore, appellant has not undergone much imprisonment. 3. The prosecution case is to the effect that on 15.10.2001, the appellant - accused has beaten victim - Sajabhai Kevlabhai with axe on his head and shoulder as well as on his backside, and therefore, victim was taken to Civil Hospital, Palanpur. The complaint of such incident was lodged by his nephew Gulabbhai Sonabhai on the same day, and thereupon, police has investigated the incident and filed chargesheet. Thereafter, accused was tried before the Sessions Court at Palanpur, wherein he was convicted as aforesaid. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses and produced 10 documentary evidence before the trial Court. To ascertain the legality and validity of the impugned judgment, convicting the appellant, I have perused the available record in the form of paper-book and considered the rival submissions. 4. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses and produced 10 documentary evidence before the trial Court. To ascertain the legality and validity of the impugned judgment, convicting the appellant, I have perused the available record in the form of paper-book and considered the rival submissions. 4. At the outset, it becomes clear on scrutiny of the available evidence on record that except two witnesses, all the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution; whereas, even two witnesses, who have tried to depose half-heartedly about their knowledge and activity during the trial, they have no option, but to disclose certain facts, which otherwise supports the case of the prosecution. As against that, there is no evidence to rebut the evidence by the prosecution, so as to prove even by way of preponderance of probabilities that either no incident has taken place at all as alleged by the prosecution or that there was no involvement of the appellant in such incident, wherein, victim has received grievous injuries. If it is so, then heavy burden rests upon the appellant to show that how and why the impugned judgment should be disturbed by converting the conviction into acquittal. 5. In light of above position, the scrutiny of the evidence on record, is listed hereunder:- 5.1. PW-1 at Exh. 13 is Dr. Shamaldas M. Athwan, had examined the victim immediately after the incident when he was brought directly from the place of incident. It is his say on oath before the Court that on 15.10.2001, when he was serving as Medical Officer at Civil Hospital, Palanpur, at about 3.30 p.m., victim Sajabhai Kevlabhai was brought before him for medical treatment and he has examined him and treated him. It is his case that on inquiring about the injuries, the victim has given a history that on the same day, at about 12 p.m., he was beaten by axe by Jhalabhai Somabhai Garasiya (Gamar) i.e. appellant herein and that he has threatened him by saying that stop, and when did not stop, he was beaten by handle of axe or backside of the axe on his back. Such history is recorded by the witness doctor in his case-paper, which he proves on record at Exh. 15. Such history is recorded by the witness doctor in his case-paper, which he proves on record at Exh. 15. The perusal of case-papers, makes it clear that there is endorsement of such disclosure in categorical terms by the doctor at the relevant time when other noting about injuries and treatment. The doctor has further stated that the victim was having following injuries:- "(1) Incised wound on head on midline anteriorly AP upto bone deep about 2-1/2" in size upto bone deep fresh blood clot on it. (2) CLW on Rt. parietal region AP about 2-1/2" x" in size up to bone deep fresh blood clot on it. (3) Abrasion on Rt. Parito-occipital regional about 1" x 1/2" in size two in number. (4) Abrasion on Rt. shoulder about 1-1/2 x 1/4" in size diffused swelling under it. (5) Red contusion on Lt. glatial region tran. about 3" x 1" in size. (6) Red contusion on Lt. scapular region 2" x 1" in size. Pt. fully conscious c/o. undergo vomiting nausea. Pulse 88/mt BP 112 mtg Pu. pil BL EPC. 76 X ray skull AP No Boney injury DAT X ray Rt. shoulder : Chip # Acromion process of Rt. Scapula." The X-ray of victim was taken, which shows no bone injuries in skull and fracture of acromion process of right scapula. Doctor has further opined that such injuries are inflicted within 24 hours of his examination, and they can be possible by sharp-cutting instrument so far as injury No. 1 is concerned and so far as injury Nos. 2 to 6 are concerned by hard and blunt substance, doctor has proved medical certificate at Exh. 15, disclosing all such information, which confirms that in absence of any complication, the injuries would take 8 to 10 weeks to recover. As against such clear and positive evidence against the appellant, there was nothing in cross-examination of such doctor, which can rebut his evidence about the injuries, its nature etc. except the information that such injuries can be possible by sharp-cutting stone and thereby any sharp instrument and by repeatedly falling on a hard and blunt substance. However, the fact remains that atleast first two injuries are of 2.5 inches and they were bone deep. except the information that such injuries can be possible by sharp-cutting stone and thereby any sharp instrument and by repeatedly falling on a hard and blunt substance. However, the fact remains that atleast first two injuries are of 2.5 inches and they were bone deep. In any case, there is nothing in cross-examination of the doctor which can help the accused to prove that there was no injury to the victim or that the disclosure of appellant's name by the victim before the doctor is either not correct or not warranted. Surprisingly, the doctor was not cross-examined at all so far as history of incident is concerned, wherein doctor has not only endorsed in the case-papers, but deposed on oath before the Court that victim has disclosed the history of injury as an assault by axe by the appellant. Therefore, in addition to prove the result of the assault by the appellant in the form of grievous injuries, as recorded herein above, evidence of the doctor results into corroboration of prosecution case so far as involvement of the appellant is concerned. 5.2. PW-2 at Exh. 16 is complainant - Gulabbhai Sonabhai, who is nephew of the victim. It is his say that on the date of the incident, when he was at home, his paternal uncle i.e. brother-in-law of the victim, namely, Anda Soma has called him to his house, where he found the appellant having injuries and bleeding from his head where victim has disclosed that how he has received such injuries i.e. he was assaulted by accused. Thereby, witness has managed to take the victim to Palanpur Civil Hospital and he lodged a complaint at Palanpur police station, disclosing the details of the incident. Such complaint is proved on record at Exh. 17. In addition to disclosure of commission of offence, the witness has also disclosed the cause or reason of the incident that before a year of incident, the victim has filed one complaint against the appellant for injuring his bullock with axe, which is one reason for dispute between both the families and that one of his uncle, namely, Kesra Kevla has taken away the wife of one Badha Vaja, who happens to be uncle of the appellant. It was also disclosed that on such issue, Panchayat of the community had met, wherein accused has asked to return his aunt to his uncle, but it was not settled because his aunt was not willing to go back. Thereby, the complainant has in terms not only proved the facts of complaint, but also explained the reason for assault by the accused, and surprisingly, some of such fact has been revealed and brought on record during the cross-examination of such witness, wherein instead of an evidence in rebuttal of the prosecution case, the defence lawyer has, with due respect, unnecessarily brought additional fact on record, which confirms the cause of quarrel, and thereby, in absence of any evidence, to prove the innocence of the appellant, it would be difficult for any Court to give him either benefit of doubt or clear acquittal. 5.3. PW-3 at Exh. 18 is Andabhai Somabhai, brother-in-law of the victim. Though he has not supported the prosecution case in verbatim, he has no option, but to admit that he found the victim being his brother-in-law having bleeding from head. The reason for not admitting the contents of his statement before the police is also obvious and clear from evidence when victim admits that accused is his cousin brother. Therefore, there is reason for him to remain quiet, but when he admits that he has seen the victim having injury on head with bleeding at his house on date and time as disclosed in the FIR and by the victim, there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution case, else the witness should have come forward with a positive evidence that though his brother-in-law - victim was injured as per the record, it was not because of the appellant, but for some other reason, disclosing such reason. Thereby, if witness admits the physical condition of the victim at the relevant place and time, and thereafter, do not disclose the reason for such injuries, more particularly, when appellant - accused is his cousin brother, then, even limited disclosure by the witness can certainly be considered as corroborating evidence supporting the case of the prosecution. 5.4. PW-4 at Exh. 19 is victim Sajabhai Kevlabhai. Since he is victim of grievous injuries by the appellant - accused, he explained everything in proper details. The reproduction of his version is not necessary. 5.4. PW-4 at Exh. 19 is victim Sajabhai Kevlabhai. Since he is victim of grievous injuries by the appellant - accused, he explained everything in proper details. The reproduction of his version is not necessary. In short, he supports the disclosure of manner and nature of injury and its outcome as proved on record by the complainant and the doctor. The most important evidence is to the effect that he discloses the name of the accused with a categorical statement that accused has assaulted him with axe and thereby he received such injuries. He also confirms the reason for quarrel as explained by previous witnesses. Though he was cross-examined at length, except contradiction during his police statement, there is no specific defence in such cross-examination. On the contrary, even contradictions are not much material, when it is not touching the main issue of assault and its result in the form of grievous injuries as recorded herein above. On the contrary, the bare reading of cross-examination of the victim goes to suggest that in fact the appellant - accused has admitted such incident, when he tried to prove by confirmation from the appellant that appellant was called in the field of Guna Khuma, where Sava Badha, Badha Vaja, Narsa Gatta and Kala Narsa were present and they were having stick and wooden-log; whereas Kala Narsa was having Khilasari and then it was suggested that they all have beaten the victim. Though victim had denied such fact, the suggestion goes to show that when all the persons listed therein are the relatives of the accused, how and why the victim should be beaten as suggested. Such cross-examination on the contrary goes to show that in fact some incident had taken place and when there is a chargesheet against the appellant, there is a reason to believe that appellant is trying to give different colour to the entire incident or to misguide the witness and the Court to prove his innocence. Other suggestion in cross-examination is also surprising. When the victim was asked that he got injuries because he tried to run away in apprehension of beating by the appellant. Even if we consider such suggestion, then, the fact remains that there is admission by the appellant that victim had an apprehension that appellant may kill him. Other suggestion in cross-examination is also surprising. When the victim was asked that he got injuries because he tried to run away in apprehension of beating by the appellant. Even if we consider such suggestion, then, the fact remains that there is admission by the appellant that victim had an apprehension that appellant may kill him. Thereby, even though this witness has been cross-examined at length, the appellant could not rebut his evidence so as to prove his own innocence. 5.5. PW-5 at Exh. 20 is panch witness of the place of the panchnama. 5.6. PW-6 at Exh. 22 is panch witness of physical position of the victim. They both support the case of the prosecution and thereby proves the panchnama at Exhs. 21 and 23. Though they were cross-examined, appellant could not prove his innocence. PW-7 at Exh. 24 and PW-8 at Exh. 26 are police officials, who have noted and registered the FIR, and therefore, they proved the relevant documentary evidence in the form of Exh. 25. They were also cross-examined, but the appellant could not prove his innocence. 5.7. PW-9 is the panch witness of recovery panchnama of axe from the appellant, but he turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. However, he has to admit his signature etc. on panchnama, which is at Exh. 28. Thus, only because of non-identification of muddamal by the panch witness of recovery panchnama, it would not confirm acquittal in favour of the appellant because other evidence is categorically confirming the commission of offence by him. 5.8. PW-10 at Exh. 31 is investigating officer. Therefore, he has narrated the entire story and history in nutshell. He being a police officer, during his cross-examination, except getting confirmation about few words here and there, the appellant cannot prove his innocence in any manner whatsoever. Amongst documentary evidence, FSL report is at Exh. 36, which confirms that shirt of the victim, axe and other samples were recovered during investigation, and there is positive evidence of blood of the victim. Therefore, if there is no injury by the axe, then, there would be negative evidence. Therefore, this evidence also corroborates the prosecution case. Whereas, there is no evidence in rebuttal so as to prove that either there was no incident at all as alleged or that though victim was injured as alleged. Such injuries were not inflicted by the appellant. 6. Therefore, this evidence also corroborates the prosecution case. Whereas, there is no evidence in rebuttal so as to prove that either there was no incident at all as alleged or that though victim was injured as alleged. Such injuries were not inflicted by the appellant. 6. I have perused the impugned judgment and order. The trial Court has taken care of all material evidence on record and after considering rival submission, both on facts and law, the trial Court has assigned its reasons for confirming conviction in paragraph 14 to 25 of its judgment. When it is explained well in details in such paragraphs, there is no necessity or need to reproduce it again. Thereby, I agree with the discussion and determination by the trial Court in confirming conviction. Thus, when prosecution was able to prove the reason for attack with injuries and positive evidence regarding assault by the appellant, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. Thereby, there is no substance in the appeal, and hence, the appeal is dismissed. 7. R & P be sent back to the concerned trial Court forthwith.