SUDHANSU SETHY @ BABULI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal arises out of the judgment and order of sentence dtd. 29/10/2005 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge (FT-1), Keonjhar in S.T. Case No.64/31 of 2005/G.R. Case No.919 of 2004, whereby the learned trial Court convicted the accused-appellant under Sec. 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code" for brevity), sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000.00, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months. Prosecution Story

(2.) The prosecution case, as disclosed in the F.I.R., reveals that on 3/11/2004, the complainant, namely Purna Chandra Sahu of Birabarpur Patna under Town P.S., Keonjhar, lodged a written report before the O.I.C., Town P.S. It was alleged therein that at about 9.30 P.M. on the said night, while the Laxmi Puja immersion procession was proceeding towards Birabarpur Patna square, the accused, Babuli Sethy, attempted to obstruct the trucks on the road. At that juncture, the injured, Sekharlal Kumar Sahu, who is the brother-in-law of the complainant, questioned the accused as to why he was detaining the trucks. The accused, in response, abused him in filthy language and gave him a push. The members of the procession organising committee intervened and separated the parties, where after the procession continued. However, as soon as the procession reached the junction of the street, the accused, all of a sudden took out an axe from an autorickshaw (Tempo) bearing Registration No. O.R.-09-E-2468 and, with the intention to kill, dealt a blow on the back of the head of P.W.2 (the injured), causing him to fell down unconscious on the spot. The members of the organisers immediately shifted the injured to the District Headquarters Hospital, Keonjhar. On the basis of the aforesaid report, the police registered Town P.S. Case No.224 of 2004 under Ss. 341/307/294 of the I.P.C. and, after completion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the accused. The appellant faced trial on his stance of denial of charges.

(3.) In support of the prosecution case, eight witnesses were examined out of which P.W.1 was the complainant who was also an eye witness, P.W.2 was the Victim, P.Ws.3, 4 and 5 were the independent witnesses, who were also the eye witnesses, P.W.6 was the doctor, who treated the victim, P.W.7 was the then I.I.C. of Ghasipura, Keonjhar, who has registered the case and P.W.8 was the I.O. of the case. However, the defence did not adduce any evidence in support of its plea. Trial Court's Analysis and Judgement