BHUPEN GOGOI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present-petitioner on being convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- I.D, for another R.I. for six months for the offence under Section 326 IPC and to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence under Section 324 IPC which were directed to run concurrently vide judgment and order dated 03.09.01 rendered by the learned SDJM (S), Sivasagar in GR Case No. 317/2000, and the appeal preferred by him against the said judgment of the learned trial Court, being dismissed by the Court of learned 1st Additional Session Judge (Ad-hoc), Sivasagar vide judgment dated 11.08.03 passed in Crl. Appeal No. 59 (4) 2001, filed the instant Revision Petition for setting aside and quashing the impugned judgments of conviction and sentence.

(2.) THE short facts projected by the prosecution is that on 23.04.2000 at about 06 P.M. the convict/petitioner voluntarily, dealt dao blows on his father Shri Bhadreswar Gogoi who fell down on the ground in serious condition due to the injuries received on his head, forehead, shoulders and hands. THE injured was immediately shifted to Jaysagar Hospital for treatment. THE accused also inflicted injuries by the dao on another person Smt. Sashi Saikia who came forward to save the injured Bhadreshwar Gogoi. A crime being P.S. Case No. 21/2000 was registered under Section 306 IPC on the basis of a written FIR received on 24.04.2000 from the wife of the injured. THE I.O. visited the place of occurrence, drew sketch map, recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the injured in hospital and collected the medical report. On surrender of the accused with the crime weapon dao at the police station on 01.05.2000, the I.O. arrested him and produced before the Magistrate. On completion of investigation, the I.O. submitted the charge sheet under Section 241/324/326 IPC. THE learned trial Court having found sufficient materials, framed charge under Section 324/326 IPC against the accused. THE charge being read over and explained, the accused/petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) DRAWING attention to the injury report and the evidence of the Medical Officer, PW 7, it is submitted by Mr. Bhuyan that out of 4 injuries, injury No. 1 and 4 are grievous in nature but the same are not covered by the definition provided under Section 320 IPC. Injury No. 1 and 4, according to him do not come under the description of grievous injuries mentioned in first to seventh descriptions. The eight description speaks about a hurt which endangers life or which causes sufferer to be during the space of 20 days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuit. As per the medical evidence, as argued by the learned counsel, the injured was admitted in hospital on 23.04.2000 and remained under treatment for less than 20 days which is not within the meaning of severe bodily pain or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits. There was no fracture of bone of any part of the body causing permanent privation of any member or joint. He has cited a case of Avinash Shetty Vs. State of Kerala & Anr. reported case (2004) 13 SCC 375, to make a point that conviction under Section 326 IPC is possible only when the injury/injuries are found grievous falling under Section 320 IPC relying on case of Mathai Vs. State of Kerala, reported in (2005) 3 SCC 260, he argued that as per the evidence of I.O, PW 8, no blood was found at the place of occurrence although the injured person allegedly received several cut injuries caused by a sharp weapon like dao.