DHARMENDRA SINGH Vs. BHEEM SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 1 was tried for offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC for committing attempt to murder of his younger brother-Dharmendra Singh by causing injuries by knife to him with intention to murder him. Sessions Judge, Indore, vide its judgment dated 28/03/2018 acquitted the respondent No. 1/accused Bheem Singh from the above mentioned charge. Application for grant of leave to appeal against judgment of acquittal has been filed by the present applicant/complainant-Dharmendra Singh.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently contended that from the evidence of Dr. Balkrishna Trivedi (PW 10) and his medical report (Ex.P/7), it was proved that on 22/04/2015, complainant-Dharmendra Singh received two incised wounds over his left scapular region and on right side of occipital region of the skull appearing to be caused by hard and sharp cutting object. Therefore, the evidence of complainant-Dharmendra Singh (PW 1) and his wife Pratibha (PW 2), Dharmendra Chouhan (PW 7) and Vikas Kailasi (PW 8) was corroboratd by the medical evidence, therefore, it is prayed that leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal should have been granted.

(3.) Though injured/complainant-Dharmendra Singh (PW 1), Pratibha (PW 2), Vikas Kailasi (PW 8) and Dharmendra Chouhan (PW 7), neighbourer of complainant supported the prosecution's case by their evidence given as eye witnesses, but there were material contradictions and inconsistencies regarding place of incidence and numbers of received injuries received by complainant in the incident. According to the evidence of complainant-Dharmendra Singh given in examination-in-chief, incident occured in his room, but he himself contradicted his evidence by deposing in cross-examination (para 6 ) that incident occured outside the room in an adjacent lane to his house. He clearly deposed in para 6 and 7 that the relating marked portions of FIR (Ex. P/1) and Police statement (Ex. D/2) that Bheem Singh committed crime after entering into his room committed theincident were not stated by him. Contrary to complainant, his wife-Pratibha (PW 2) clearly deposed ( para 3) that incident has occured inside their room. Their nephew (Bhanja) Vikas Kailasi (PW 8), clearly deposed in examination-in-chief that after hearing the abuses when he reached in the lane, then he saw the incident. Neighbourer-Dharmendra Chouhan (PW 7) in para 4 deposed that incident had occured inside the house of complainant in the corridor of house of the complainant and he positively deposed that incident had not occured in the lane adjacent to the house of the complainant.