NARASINGHA GOPAL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the order of conviction under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, and sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment. Initially, the petitioner and two other accused persons faced trial under Sections 307, 342/34, Indian Penal Code, on the allegation that they had wrongfully confined P.W. 4 and had attempted to commit the murder of P.W. 1, the informant. The trial Court convicted the three accused persons including the petitioner under Sections 307, 342/34, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 307/34, Indian Penal Code, and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 342/34, Indian Penal Code. In appeal, the appellate Court allowed the appeal in part and set aside the conviction under Section 342/34, Indian Penal Code, in respect of all the three accused persons and also acquitted the two other co-accused persons of the charge under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, while confirming the conviction of the petitioner under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, the appellate Court reduced the sentence to two years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The aforesaid order of conviction and sentence, as imposed by the appellate Court, is under challenge in the present revision.

(2.) As per the prosecution case, while the informant (P.W. 1) was sleeping on the verandah of his house in the night of 28-12-1992, one person removed the cloth from the face of the informant and showed an axe. It is alleged that the present petitioner assaulted on the head, left hand and leg of the informant with the axe. On hearing hullah, when his wife and co-villagers came to the spot, the accused persons left the place of occurrence. On these allegations, a case was registered under Section 307/34, Indian Penal Code. However, in course of the investigation, it transpired from the statement of P.W. 4 that he had been illegally confined in the night of occurrence by the accused persons and ultimately, charge sheet was submitted against the three accused persons under Sections 307, 324/34, Indian Penal Code.

(3.) The plea of the accused persons was one of denial. It was pleaded by the present petitioner and his father, co-accused Gobardhan, that they were not present at the place of occurrence at the time of the alleged occurrence.