DURJE @ LINGARAJ HANS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order of conviction of the Appellant recorded by Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Titilagarh in Sessions Case No. 29/8 of 1989. The accused -Appellant was tried for offences Under Section s. 307, 326 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that in the month of Bhadrav, 1988 one after -noon at about 5 P.M. he attempted to cause death of one Jagabandhu Bag by dealing an axe blow on his chest, when the said Jagabandhu was standing on the village road. The plea of the accused -Appellant was one of denial and false implication. The Appellant also made a counter allegation that Jagabandhu out -raged the modesty of his wife and caused injuries to her and because that matter was reported to the police authorities, Jagabandhu created the above noted false allegation against him. During trial seven witnesses were examined and documents Exts. 1 to 6 were produced by the prosecution. In defence, the Appellant examined one witness and produced documents Exts. A to E. On considering all those evidences, Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Titilagarh found the Appellant guilty of offence Under Section 324, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year. The said order of conviction and sentence is under challenge in this appeal.

(2.) MR . M.M. Sahu, Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the prosecution evidence was not enough to establish the guilt of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt. According to him, Learned Trial Court did not appreciate the prosecution evidence and the defence plea properly and in the result arrived at a wrong conclusion. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of the State on the other hand argues that the evidence of the eye witnesses were clinching in nature and were fully supported by medical evidence and so Learned Trial Court committed no error in holding the Appellant guilty Under Section 324, Indian Penal Code. He also indicates that the Learned Trial Judge has assigned reason as to why the defence plea and evidence were improper and unacceptable. In short, Learned Addl. Standing Counsel strongly supports the impugned Judgment.

(3.) EVIDENCE of P. Ws. 2 to 4 clearly revealed that at the spur of the moment there was a quarrel between P.W. 2 and Appellant and during that quarrel the Appellant dealt an axe blow on P.W. 2. In such situation, it cannot be inferred that the Appellant had either planned to cause death to P.W. 2 or that he dealt the axe blow with the intention of causing death or that he had the knowledge that his blow might cause death. That being so, Learned trial Judge was perfectly justified in saying that the ingredients of Section 307, Indian Penal Code are wanting. Similarly, report of the doctor no doubt says that injury was serious in nature, but it does not say that the injury was grievous in nature. Moreover, X -Ray report, Ext. 3, also did not reveal clearly that there was any fracture on the ribs. That apart, the medical evidence revealed that P.W. 2 remained as Indoor patient in hospital for less than 20 days. So his injury was not one coming within the definition of "grievous hurt" and for that reason Learned trial Judge had good reason to say that the case does not also come within the ambit of Section 326, Indian Penal Code. Since the injury was inflicted with a sharp cutting weapon it was a case coming Under Section 324, Indian Penal Code and rightly the Trial Court convicted the Appellant Under Section 324, Indian Penal Code.