LAWS(ORI)-1995-8-1

RAGHUNATH ASHA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

Decided On August 11, 1995
RAGHUNATH ASHA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ORISSA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused, petitioner herein, stood changed under Section 307 and 391, I.P.C. upon trial, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Athagarh, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years for the offence under S. 307, IPC and one year for the offence under Section 324, I.P.C. and ordered both the sentences to run concurrently. The accused then challenged the judgement and order of the Assistant Sessions Judge in appeal and upon hearing the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack, while setting aside the conviction under Section 307, I.P.C. upheld the conviction under Section 324 and reduced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for five months. It is against this judgement the accused has preferred the present revision.

(2.) Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. On 5-11-89 at about 3 P.M. P.W. 1 Rajkishore Rout and his brother Chandra Sekhar Rout, P.W. 9 while returning from Nuapatne Spinning Mill, the accused obstructed them near Chandi Bazar Chhok of Nuapatne and abused in filthy language and thrust a Muna, a pointed iron weapon, into the belly of Chandrasekhar. P.W. 1 Rajkishore Rout and P.W. 5 Susants Kumar Rout when intercepted they were not spared. The accused also assaulted them with Muna and caused injuries on their person. The incident was reported to the police and after usual investigation charge-sheet was laid. Upon trial, the accused was found guilty and convicted as hereinbefore stated.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the accused though assailed the judgement of the appellate court on several grounds, but he only confined his mission that the learned appellate court committed grave error in not extending the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act to the accused. Elucidating the point he urged that considering the genesis and origin of the incident nature of injuries sustained by P.W. 9, the learned appellate court should have released the accused on probation, particularly when the was a first offender.