CHAITAN BHUYAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the petitioners were Initially convicted under Section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R. I. for 3 (three) months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ - with defaulting sentence. Further, petitioner Chaitan had been convicted under Section 325, I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo 3 months R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ -. On appeal the convictions have been maintained but the sentences modified occasioning this revision.

(2.) IN brief, the prosecution case is thus: - On 7 -12 -73 at about 10 a. m. the informant (P.W. 1) was collecting kachada in his land. His brother Bhagaban Rout (P. W. 3) and informant (P. W. 1) and Syamsundar (P. W. 4) and Balaram (P. W. 2) were carrying kachada to their house. At that time these two petitioners appeared at the spot and assaulted the complainant's party on account of the previous grudge. Petitioner Balakrushna Bhuyan dealt two lathi blows on the informant who fell down and raised a hue and cry that he was dying. At this, his nephew Balaram (P. W. 2) came to his rescue. So, petitioner Chaitan Bhuyan dealt a lathi blow on the left hand of Balaram causing a fracture. At that time, informant's younger brother Bhagaban (P. W. 3) and Syamsundar (P. W. 4) also came to the spot. The petitioners assaulted them with a bhali at their palms resulting in bleeding injuries. This was witnessed by Durga Charan Naik (P. W. 6) and Dhasarathi Rout (P. W. 5). As Balaram was severely injured, he was removed to Cuttack Medical Hospital for treatment and his hand was X -rayed and he remained there for 2 months as an indoor patient. The informant lodged information on 13 -12 -73 at Dharmashala Police Station resulting in the charge -sheet of the two petitioners and their conviction as aforesaid.

(3.) THE prosecution examined 9 witnesses and defence 2. Out of P. Ws, P. W. 1 is the informant, P. Ws 2, 3, 4 are the three injured, P. Ws. 5 and 6 are the two independent witnesses to the occurrence, P. Ws. 7 and 8 are two Doctors who examined the injured and P.W. 9 is the I. O. Out of the two D. Ws., D. W. 1 is a Private Practitioner who gave a certificate regarding injuries on petitioner -Chaitan (Ext. A). He has stated that the injuries on the person of Chaitan are simple in nature and might have been caused by blunt weapon. In the cross -examination he admitted that they can be by fall and even self -inflicted. P. W. 2 proved the private complaint (I. C. C. No. 489/ 73) filed by the accused Chaitan against the informant and others (Ext. B).