SADHU CHARAN PANDA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner along with his father and sister were convicted under Ss.307, 324 and 325/314, Penal Code, by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Athagarh, and were sentenced differently for their conviction on different counts. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge found that the Assistant Sessions Judge had awarded the sentence without hearing the petitioner on the question of sentence and accordingly remitted the matter to the learned Assistant Sessions Judge to hear the petitioner along with other accussed persons on the question of sentence. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, thereafter heard the accused persons and passed different sentences. The conviction of the petitioner along with others passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge was challenged in appeal and the learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the conviction and sentence of the two other accused persons other than the petitioner and so far as the petitioner is concerned, his conviction under Ss.307 and 325, I.P.C. was also set aside, but petitioner's conviction under S.324, I.P.C. was affirmed and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and it is this conviction and sentence of the petitioner which are being challenged in the present revision.

(2.) Petitioner's conviction under S.324, I.P.C. is on account of the fact that on 9-2-1981, a dispute arose with regard to sharing of biri crop which had been jointly grown on the Mahanadi Patha and in course of which Sankarsan (P.W. 1) was severely assaulted by the petitioner by means of a Katari. Sankarsan lodged the F.I.R. (Ext. 1) on the basis of which the police ragistered a case and started investigation and on completion of investigation submitted the charge-sheet.

(3.) Prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses of whom P.W. 1 is the injured and P.Ws. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence; P.Ws. 5 and 9 are the post-occurrence witnesses; P.W. 10 is a seizure witness; P.W. 11 is the Lady Assistant Surgeon who had examined the injured (P.W. 1) and the injury report is Ext. 4 and P.W. 12 is the Investigating Officer. On the defence side also three witnesses were examined. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has sustained the conviction of the petitioner relying upon the evidence of the injured (P.W. 1) which gets ample corroboration from the evidence of P. Ws. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 as well as the medical evidence of the doctor (P. W. 11).