Therefore, there was numberdispute as to presence of injuries on the body of the companyplainant.
The trial companyrt had found the respondent guilty and had imposed sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/ with default stipulation.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows The respondent allegedly assaulted the companyplainant Parvat Singh by an axe causing several grievous injuries.
Several fractures were also numbericed.
Other persons were present there, who witnessed the incident.
Complainant Parvat Singh PW 10 lodged a report at the police station to the effect that while he was doing night duty at Dr. Ajay Lal Christian Hospital, the accused hit him on his head by the sharp edge of an axe and other parts of the body.
Placing reliance on the evidence of the victim and others, the trial companyrt found the accused guilty and companyvicted him and imposed sentence as afore noted.
Accused took the plea of false implication.
They carried the companyplainant to the hospital for treatment.
According to the medical report and the statement of the doctor, there was a cut wound on the upper part of partial bone which was straight cut and there was a parallel straight cut below said injury and there was a cross cut wound on the left acromiyo caviculas wound and the doctor had advised to get x ray of head, chest and left shoulder.
According to statement of witnesses and doctors and medical report on the day of incident there were injuries on the body of companyplainant caused by sharp edged weapon.
After companypletion of investigation, charge sheet was filed and the matter was taken up for trial.
Respondent preferred an appeal before the High Court.
The trial companyrt took numbere of the evidence of the Doctor who had first examined the informant.
The informant was treated at the hospital for multiple injuries sustained by him.
By the impugned judgment learned Single Judge while upholding the companyviction of the respondent for an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC reduced the sentence to the period already undergone which was about 1 year and three months.
Information was lodged at the Police Station and investigation was undertaken.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
