(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant and the State.
(2.) THE appellant has been convicted under Section 304 part I of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years.
(3.) HOWEVER, P.Ws. 1 to 6 supported the prosecution case, but, taking into consideration the counter version and the counter case and the injury on the person of the appellant, Saryug Yadav, which has been proved by doctor, D.W. 1, and it has been asserted that on 15.03.1987 he examined Saryug Prasad Yadav and the injury found was circumspective wound on the upper part of the left thigh and the wound was profusely bleeding and blood loss was excess. The patient was brought in drossy stage, would was 3 index finger deep, the age of injury was within six hours and injury report has been proved and marked as Exhibit A. The doctor though has stated that the life of the injured was in danger due to above injury and he can not judge whether the injury was simple or grievous and referred the patient to Patna Medical College Hospital. HOWEVER, the case instituted by the defence is prior in time on 17.03.1987, on the date of occurrence.