ASIT KUMAR SAHU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the appellate judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack confirming the convictionand sentence passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Cuttack holding the petitioner guilty of offences under Section 324, Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentencing thereunder.

(2.) THE petitioner along with another was tried for commission of offences punishable under Sections 307/326/34, IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. On the basis of the FIR lodged by P.W. 7 (the injured, due to pistol shot injury on his belly) at the S. C. B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack on 14.10.1993 at about 10.00 P.M., Purighat P.S. Case No. 409 of 1993 was registered under Sections 307/ 326/34, IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. The FIR story is that P.W. 7 Ananda Das, the injured -informant, earlier had informed the police regarding movement of one Anil Sen of his Sahi and his friends with pistols, the persons were arrested and pistols were seized from his friends and as such Anil Sen allegedly bore grudge against the informant. On 14.12.1993 at about 10.30 P.M., while the informant was purchasing cheese, Anil Sen along with two of his friends came towards his house and Anil identified the informant and his house to his friends. After their departure, the informant had gone to Durga Mandap and came out wearing his sweater, he was seen by Anil and his two friends. Suddenly, one of the friends of Anil came near him and fired the pistols pointing to his belly. The informant, however, caught hold of one of the persons with the pistol, while Anil and others fled away. Hearing the sound of firing, some Sahi people came out, detained the accused -petitioner Asit and by then the informant fell down because of the injuries. The police after investigation, submitted charge -sheet under Sections 307/326/34, IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

(3.) THE learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Cuttack on elaborate discussion and appreciation of evidence found that the accusedAsit Sahu, the petitioner had caused the injury on the person of P.W. 7 by firing from his pistol. However, the learned Trial Court acquitted accused Anil Sen since he was found to be present at the spot without playing any specific overt act. Basing on the evidence of P.Ws. 5, 6 and 7, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge held that accused Asit had fired from his country made pistol aiming at the belly of the injured -informant resulting in the injuries thereon in terms of the medical report. P.W. 3, the Assistant Director, S.F.S.L., Bhubaneswar had proved that the country made pistol with chamber for chambering a .315 calibre rifle catridge, hammer action firing mechanism, trigger with trigger guard, metal plated stock was in efficient working order to discharge fatal bullets of .315 calibre. P.W. 4, the Scientific Officer of the District Forensic Science Laboratory, Cuttack had proved the seizure list Ext. 1/2 which contained a country made pistol with fire catridge inside the barrel and a live catridge and fired 'sisha' seized by the Investigating Officer, P.W. 9 and other blood -stained lungi, sweater, hawani belonging to the victim. P.W. 9 also had seized from the custody of the accused a live catridge. The injury report of the Doctor, who treated the injured at the hospital and his report is marked as Ext. 8, on admission disclosed a clean cut wound 1 cm diameter 4 cm. below in between depth upto peretoneum towards upper surface of urinary bladder and right ingunial region skin is inverted, bleeding blackened. Colour is signing, which is the wound of entry. Another wound clean cut 1 cm. diameter, 4 cm. depth skin is everted on the medical aspect of the right thigh. The injuries were, however, reported to be simple in nature. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, on the basis of the injury report in absence of any specific finding in it that the injury was on any vital part of the body and sufficient in course of nature to cause death, while acquitting the petitioner from the charges under Sections 307/326, IPC held him guilty under Section 324, IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and convicted him thereunder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The learned Sessions Judge, on appeal, has confirmed the order of conviction and sentence relying on and discussing elaborately, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.