ASHOK KUMAR PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner who was convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Rourkela for the offence punishable under Sec. 304 Part-Il, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 4 years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- was acquitted of that charge but was convicted under Sec. 326, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years and pay a fine of Rs.1000/- by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela.

(2.) Having heard Mr. H.M. Dhal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Kasturi, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State and having gone through the evidence on record and the judgments of the courts below, I am not inclined to accept the contention of Mr. Dhal that there has been wrong appreciation of the evidence on record by the courts below. His contention that P.Ws. 1 and 3 being relations of the deceased, their evidence should have been discarded cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the deceased was closely related to the petitioner, the deceased being the maternal uncleTs son of the petitioner. Therefore, I do not think that there would be any reason for P.Ws. 1 and 3 to foist a false case against the petitioner. That apart, the presence of these two witnesses has been rightly believed the courts below and therefore, the finding of the courts below that it was the petitioner who stabbed the deceased on the chest with a knife is confirmed.

(3.) However, going through the evidence of P.W. 8, the doctor who had occasion to first examine the deceased and P.W. 9 the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination it is abundantly clear that neither of the doctors has given any opinion that the death was because of the injury or that it endangered the life so as to attract the rigour of Sec. 326, I.P.C. P.W. 8 stated that the nature of the injury was simple, but dangerous to life. Nothing has been explained by the prosecution touching his evidence as to how the injury in fact endangered the life of the deceased. In this connection, expert opinion is wanting. So far as P.W. 9 is concerned, it is found from his evidence that on dissection he found all the vital organs, like, brain, heart, lungs, large and small intestines etc. to be in tact. In other words, there was no damage to any of these vital organs because of the injury. In the absence of any medical opinion, as to how the injury was grievous in nature, the conviction under Sec. 326, I.P.C. is misconceived. However, the proved fact is that the petitioner dealt a blow with a knife, a dangerous weapon. Therefore, the offence squarely comes under Sec. 324, I.P.C. Parties are closely related to each other. Remaining in custody for a long period would only aggravate the bitterness and affect the family relationship. It is also considered that because of long lapse of time, amity might have prevailed between the two families. Considering all these aspects, to meet the ends of justice, it would be appropriate to reduce the sentence to one month R.I. and set aside the fine of Rs. 1000/- imposed on the petitioner: