TULSIRAM Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C., appellant Tulsiram s/o Vasudev Keswani has challenged the judgment dated 27/12/1997 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in S.T. No.104/1996 whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of the fine, he was to undergo additional three months S.I. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that complainant Ashok Kumar was a resident of Sindhi Colony and an owner of a garment shop situated behind Ashok Talkies. On 14/10/1995 the complainant was sitting in his shop, at that time appellant Tulsiram s/o Vasudev resident of Sindhi Colony, Ujjain came there and asked that a disputed occurred between him and his wife and enquired as to why the complainant had come to the house of the appellant, but he had objected the same and called him behind the shop. All of a sudden appellant pulled out aknife from his pocket and stabbed on the complainant s stomach four times with the intention to kill him. The matter was reported at the police station. After completion of investigation, the accused/appellant was duly charged and committed to his trial. Accused/appellant abjured his guilt and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the matter. On the basis of the evidence on record, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as herein above indicated.

(2.) Learned Counsel for appellant has urged that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the matter. Counsel further submitted that the conviction is contrary to the provisions of law. The Court below has failed to appreciate the evidence and there are material omissions and contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witness, which have not been considered by the trial Court. Counsel further submitted that although the injuries had occurred on the vital part of the complainant, in para 26 of the impugned judgment Dr. Lakshminaryan, P.W. 11 has stated on the query report that the injuries received were not so serious in nature and could have occurred on the chest due to falling on sharp edged piece glass or anything of that sort. Hence, Counsel submitted that the offence under Section 307 is not made out against the appellant and prays that the offence be converted to under Section326 of the IPC. Counsel further submitted that the appellant has already undergone one year three months and 80 days of the custodial sentence. Hence, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the judgment of trial Court be set aside.

(3.) Learned Counsel for respondent/State per contra stated that the judgment of the trial Court is in accordance with law and does not require any interference and the appeal filed by the appellant be dismissed.