STATE OF ORISSA Vs. MADHAB CHANDRA DEHURY @ NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 1.7.1992 passed by the C.J.M. -cum -Assistant Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in Sessions Trial Case No. 111/30 of 1991 wherein while convicting the accused/respondent Madhab Chandra Dehury @ Naik for the offence under Section 324 of I.P.C. he released him under Section 4(3) of the Probation of Offenders Act.

(2.) SUCCINCTLY stated the case of the prosecution is that on 5.8.1991 at about 12.20 P.M. while the informant (P.W.3) and P.W.4 were sitting in the office of B.D.O., Keonjhar, Sadar to ascertain about the development of the retailorship of the latter, suddenly the accused/respondent along with the co -accused since acquitted stormed into the Block office and inflicted a Farsa blow on the back of P.W.3. When he was attempting to inflict another blow on his neck, he warded it off by raising his left hand for which two of his fingers got injured. Immediately P.W.4 took the injured to Town P.S., Keonjhar, where the inured orally reported the incident to the O.I.C. who reduced the same into writing. As the allegation contained in the F.I.R. revealed a cognizable case, the O.I.C. registered it under Section 307/34 of I.P.C. and took up investigation. In course of investigation he visited the spot, prepared the spot map, examined some witnesses, sent the injured under requisition to the hospital and on 24.8.1991 made over charge of the investigation to S.I. Sri Basanta Kumar Panda who after examining some more witnesses submitted Charge Sheet against the accused/respondent and the co -accused, since acquitted under Section 307/34 of I.P.C. under which they faced trial.

(3.) LEARNED Addl. Standing counsel submits that taking into consideration the nature of injuries, the manner in which the same were caused, the trial Court ought not have released the accused -respondent under Section 4(3) of the P.O. Act. As found from the evidence of Doctor P.W.2 he noticed the following injuries on P.W.3;