NOOR AHAMAD KHAN @ NOOR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed challenging the Judgment dated 13.12.2005 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-III at Hassan in S.C.No.26/2005, convicting the appellant for an offence under Section 324 IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- indefault to undergo RI for 8 days for the said offence.

(2.) It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant is the son-in-law of the brother of the injured PW.1-Basheer Ahamed. The marital life of the appellant was not good. He had married the daughter of the brother of PW.1. He had 3 sons and one daughter. He was separated from his wife since two years prior to the date of incident. While leaving, his wife took the daughter, whereas sons remained with the accused. The wife had filed a maintenance case against the accused. Panchayath was held, but there was no re-conciliation and hence, the relationship between PW.1 and his brother on the one hand and the accused on the other hand had strained. Further, the accused had taken a sum of Rs. 18,000/- as hand loan from PW.1 but had not returned. Hence, on 15.7.2004 at about 9.30 p.m. PW.1 along with his brother PW.3-Shabbir Ahamed went near the tailoring shop at Mehaboob Nagar and at that time PW.1 demanded the money given to the accused. Accused picked up a quarrel and assaulted PW.1 with a chopper, which he had already brought. When PW.1 and his brother approached the Police Station, a case for offence under Section 307 of IPC was registered against the accused. After completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed for the said offence. Since the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions. Thereafter, charge for the offence under Section 307 IPC was framed against the accused.

(3.) The prosecution in order to prove the case has examined in all 12 witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P10. The defence of the accused was one of total denial. However, it is his case that it is the PW.1 and PW.3 who had attempted to assault him in which the appellant himself was injured. It is his further case that he, (the accused) had given money to PW.1. In order to substantiate his case, the accused had examined one Dr.N.Ramesh as DW.1 and also produced documents as Exs.D1 to D6. Learned Sessions Judge after appreciating the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the case against the appellant for an offence under Section 307 IPC. However, the Court held him guilty for an offence under Section 324 IPC. It is this order of conviction and sentence, which is challenged in this appeal.