THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2626 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The appellant/A-1 was convicted by the lower Court under Section 307 IPC and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of four years and fine of Rs.200/-. Aggrieved by the same, A-1 filed this appeal. A-1 and A-2 as well as the injured/PW-1 are related to each other, the accused being children of PW-1’s father’s cousin. According to PW-1, there used to be petty quarrels between him and the accused. A-2 is younger brother of A-1. A-2 was acquitted by the lower Court on merits. It is alleged that on 16-10-2003 at about 12.00 noon when PW-1 was at PW-2’s shop in Bowenpally Market Yard, Secunderabad, A-2 sprinkled chilly powder on face of PW-1 and A-1 stabbed PW-1 below his left armpit with an intention to kill him and caused injuries to PW-1. Plea of A-1 is one of not guilty and of total denial. After trial, the lower Court found A-1 alone guilty of the charge under Section 307 IPC. Out of the eyewitnesses PW-3 turned hostile to the prosecution. After hearing cries, PW-7 who was a lemon vendor in the same market rushed to the scene and saw PW-1 with bleeding injuries and A-1 with knife. PW-7 took PW-1 to Trimulghery Police Station and from there to Appolo Hospital, where PW-1 was treated both medically and surgically. The Doctors who treated and who noted injuries of PW-1 could not be examined as one of the Doctors went abroad for higher studies. PW-12 who is working as consultant in the same hospital and who was acquainted with handwritings and signatures of Doctors who issued Exs.P-10 and P-11 medical record and certificate proved the same. Ex.P-11 injury certificate shows that PW-1 was having two lacerated wounds on left side of anterior chest wall and anterior auxillary line of left sub-coastal region. PW-11 registered Ex.P-2 report given by PW-7, issued Ex.P-8 F.I.R. and investigated into the offence. Even though PW-11 claims to have seized M.O.1 knife in pursuance of the alleged statement of A-1 after his arrest under the cover of Ex.P-9, the lower Court rightly disbelieved the same as the weapon was available at the scene itself as per Ex.P-3 photograph taken by PW-8 after the offence. There is evidence of the injured PW-1 and that of PWs.2, 4 and 5, who are eyewitnesses apart from PW-7 in support of the prosecution case. It is evidence of PW-1 that when he was talking to PW-2 at his shop, the accused came there and took him aside and A-1 took out knife from his pant back pocket and stabbed him beneath his left armpit for four or five times. But medical record shows that there were only two injuries on PW-1. It is contended that there is omission in investigation record with regard to the accused calling and taking him to some distance from PW-2’s shop before A-1 stabbing him. In my opinion, the said omission is on a trivial aspect and not on any material aspect of the case. PW-2 also says that when PW-1 was talking to him at about 12.00 noon A-1 came and informed PW-1 about his father calling him and that PW-1 moved aside for about 10 feet and that thereafter A-1 stabbed PW-1 with knife below his left armpit. PW-4 though originally stated that he did not witness any incident and did not see when PW-1 suffered injury, subsequently stated that when PW-1 was at his shop the accused came and talked something with him and that A-1 took out a knife and stabbed PW-1. He says that 2 or 3 shops intervened his shop from PW-2’s shop. PW-5 has got shop at the same market. She says that among the accused some one is said to have sprinkled chilly powder on PW-1 and one of them stabbed PW-1. She deposed that she did not see it personally. Thus, there is evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 4 in support of the prosecution case to the effect that it was A-1 who dealt knife blows on PW-1 below his left armpit and caused stab injuries to him. Their evidence coupled with medical evidence undoubtedly proved that it was A-1 who attacked PW-1 with knife and caused two injuries to PW-1 below his left armpit. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that the lower Court disbelieved the prosecution evidence about participation of A-2 in this offence and also disbelieved seizure of M.O.1 knife at the instance of A-1 and that therefore the lower Court should have extended the same benefit of doubt to the participation of A-1 in this offence against PW-1. Simply because a portion of prosecution evidence is disbelieved, it will not follow that entire prosecution case is false. The maxim falsus in Uno falsus in omnibus is inapplicable in Indian law. Appreciation of evidence includes removal of chaff from grain. The Court has to remove that portion of evidence which is not believable from the portion which is believable and which can be relied upon. The lower Court rightly came to the conclusion that on the basis of evidence of the injured and eyewitnesses that it was A-1 who attacked PW-1 with knife and caused injuries to him. This Court also on scrutiny of the entire prosecution evidence, is of the opinion that the said finding of the lower Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence. At the same time, there was no reason for A-1 to commit murder of PW-1 and to make an attempt on his life. There were only quarrels between the two on certain issues which were not so serious in order to drive A-1 to make an attempt to PW-1’s life. From the trend of cross- examination of the prosecution witnesses it appears that quarrels related to establishment of shops and allotment of space in the market area at Bowenpally. If really A-1 had intention to kill PW-1, he would have chosen to stab PW-1 on fatal and vulnerable parts of his body and would not have chosen armpit area. Nothing prevented A-1 in causing serious injuries to PW-1 and to achieve his object of killing him, in case A-1 intended to kill him. I am of the opinion that intention of A-1 in attacking PW-1 with knife is only to cause injuries to him. PW-12 though stated that the injuries sustained by PW-1 are serious in nature in medical terms, they cannot be termed as grievous injuries in law. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the appropriate penal provision to be invoked against A-1 in this case is one under Section 324 IPC and not under Section 307 IPC. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed altering conviction of the appellant/A-1 from Section 307 IPC to Section 324 IPC and altering period of sentence of imprisonment from four years to one year and maintaining the fine amount. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J October 18, 2011 PN THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2626 of 2004 October 18, 2011 PN