GARG, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 29. 8. 2001 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nimbahera in Sessions Case No. 2/99, by which he convicted the accused appellant for the offence u/secs. 307, 324 and 323 IPC and sentenced in the following manner:- Name of accused appellant Convicted u/sec. Sentence awarded Pappu Singh @ Laxmansingh 307 IPC Five years' RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year SI. 324 IPC Six months' RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for one month. 323 IPC Two months' RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days SI. All the above substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows:- THE case of the prosecution is that on 25. 8. 98 at about 3. 15 AM, PW-1 Nand Singh gave parchabayan (Ex. P/1) to one Narain Singh, ASI to the effect that on 24. 8. 1998 at about 9. 10 p. m. he was going from his house towards market and near to his house there is a house of one Dhan Singh and he found accused appellant, who is son of Dhan Singh standing there. THE accused appellant called PW-1 Nand Singh and, there- after, accused appellant took him to his house and at that time, accused appellant was having a big knife and he pierced that knife into the stomach of PW-1 Nand Singh, as a result of which, his intestine came out, another assault by knife was also given to him and accused appellant made third attempt by knife on his head, which was stopped by him through his hands, as a result thereof, he received injuries on his right hand and on his making hue and cry, his wife Resham Kunwar (PW-2) and his father Nana Singh (PW-3) also came on the spot and they intervened in the matter and when they tried to intervene, the accused appellant also gave knife blow on the head of PW 2 Resham Kunwar and when the accused appellant tried to give another knife blow to PW 2 Resham Kunwar, she resisted that blow by putting her right hand and in that intervention, PW 3 Nana Singh, father of PW-1 Nand Singh, also received injuries and after hearing the cries, some neighbourers PW-6 Ambu Singh, PW-5 Shyama Bai and PW-8 Vardi Bai also came on the spot. It was further stated in the parchabayan that accused appellant had caused injuries to PW 1 Nan Singh because of long standing enmity. On that parchabayan Ex. P/1, a regular FIR Ex. P/14 was chalked out at Police Station Nimbahera and investigation was started. During investigation, in the Government Hospital, Nimbahera, PW 1 Nand Singh, PW 2 Resham Kunwar and PW 3 Nana Singh were got medically examined by PW 11 Dr. Kamlesh. THE injury reports of PW 2 Resham Kunwar, PW 3 Nana Singh and PW 1 Nand Singh are Ex. P/9, Ex. P/10 and Ex. P/11 respectively. Since the condition of PW 1 Nand Singh was very serious, therefore, he was referred to RNT Medical College & Associated Group of Hospital, Udaipur, where he was admitted and operation of his stomach was got conducted by PW 9 Umed Singh and operation notes are Ex. P/7a and his discharge certificate is Ex. P/16. THE accused appellant was arrested through Ex. P/12 on 2. 12. 1998 and while in police custody he gave an information Ex. P/15 to PW 15 Devi Singh for recovery of one knife alleged to have been used by him in assaulting PW 1 Nand Singh and others and in pursuance to that information, at the instance of accused appellant, a knife was recovered by PW 15 Devi Singh in presence of PW 12 Mohd. Rasheed and PW 13 Hemant Kumar and the fard of recovery of knife is Ex. P/13. THE site plan which was prepared by PW 15 Devi Singh is Ex. P/2. After usual investigation, police submitted challan against the accused appellant in the Court of Magistrate, from where the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. On 14. 7. 1999, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nimbahera framed charges for the offence under sections 307, 324 and 323 IPC against the accused appellant. THE charges were read over and explained to the accused appellant. THE accused appellant denied the charges and claimed trial. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 15 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. THEreafter, statement of the accused appellant under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. was recorded. In defence, three witnesses were produced by the accused appellant. After conclusion of trial, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nimbahera through his judgment and order dated 29. 8. 2001 convicted the accused appellant for the offence under sections 307, 324 and 323 IPC and sentenced in the manner as indicated above holding inter- alia that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused appellant for the said offences. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 29. 8. 2001 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nimbahera, this appeal has been filed by the accused appellant. In this appeal, the learned counsel appearing for the accused appellant has made the following submissions:- (1) That in the present case, FIR is suspicious document and, therefore, no reliance can be placed on it because of the following reasons:- (i) That FIR was registered on the basis of statement of injured PW 1 Nand Singh and the same was recorded by Narain Singh, ASI in the Hospital, Nimbahera and in that statement Ex. P/1, there is thumb impression of PW 1 Nand Singh, while in his statement recorded in Court, he has put his signatures on the statement recorded in Court. (ii) That from perusing the statement of PW 1 Nand Singh and other witnesses, it appears that after the alleged incident, he was unconscious and he was not in a position to give statement and,therefore, whatever is written in Ex. P/1, is not the version of injured PW 1 Nand Singh and on the contrary, if he gave version, that has been suppressed by the police and thus, report Ex. P/1 should be treated as a false and fabricated document. (2) That the statement of injured PW 1 Nand Singh was recorded on 19. 9. 1998 whereas alleged incident took place on 24. 8. 1998 and thus, police deliberately and intentionally did not record the statement of injured PW 1 Nand Singh and this delay creates doubt on the prosecution story. (3) That in the present case, site inspection was made by PW 15 Devi Singh on 27. 9. 1998 though alleged incident took place on 24. 8. 1998 and there were two other injured witnesses PW 2 Resham and PW 3 Nana Singh and thus, there was too much delay in inspecting the site and preparing site plan and police intentionally and deliberately did not inspect the site immediately and this delay creates doubt on the prosecution story. (4) That in the present case, PW 2 Resham is the wife of injured PW 1 Nand Singh and PW 3 Nana Singh is the father of PW 1 Nand Singh and rest prosecution witnesses have been declared hostile and thus, there are no independent witnesses to support the prosecution case and apart from this, since PW 3 Nana Singh did not receive any injury of sharp edged weapon, therefore, he is not an eye witness and his statement as eye witness is of no value. (5) That the injury report Ex. P/11 of injured PW 1 Nand Singh is not an original report and it is a copy and, therefore, it is no document in the eye of law and in absence of it, injuries on the person of PW 1 Nand Singh cannot be held to be proved. (6) That from the injuries which were received by injured PW 1 Nand Singh, no case for attempting to commit murder of PW 1 Nand Singh is made out against the accused appellant and thus, the findings of conviction for the offence under Sec. 307 IPC cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside. Hence, it was prayed that this appeal be allowed and the accused appellant be acquitted of the charges framed against him. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nimbahera. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the case. Before discussing the evidence and contentions raised by the learned counsel for the accused appellant, first medical evidence has to be seen.
(3.) THERE is no dispute on the point that alleged incident took place on 24. 8. 1998 at about 9. 10 PM and on the very day, PW 1 Nand Singh was got admitted in the Hospital, Nimbahera, where he was medically examined by PW 11 Dr. Kamlesh and other injured PW 2 Resham and PW 3 Nana Singh were also medically examined by PW 11 Dr. Kamlesh. Pw 11 Dr. Kamlesh Babel states in his statement that on 25. 8. 1998 he was Medical Officer in the Referal Hospital, Nimbahera and on that day he examined Pw 2 Resham and found the following injuries on her person:- (1) Incised wound 2cmx0. 5cmx subcutaneous deep, on lateral aspect of arm (left) upper 1/3. Simple by sharp edged weapon. (2) Incised wound 2 cm x 0. 5 cmx subcutaneous deep, on Anterio medical aspect of left arm upper 1/3 about 5 cm from injury (1 ). Simple by sharp edged weapon. (3) Abrasion 0. 5x0. 1cm on right parietal region. Simple by blunt object. He has proved the injury report Ex. P/9. Thus, from the statement of Pw 11 Dr. Kamlesh, it is proved that injuries mentioned in the injury report Ex. P/9 were received by Pw 2 Resham. ;