CHAMPAK NATH Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. M.H. Ahmed, learned counsel, who has been appointed as Amicus Curiae to argue the case on behalf of the accused/appellant. Also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. By means of this appeal, the accused/appellant, namely, Shri Champak Nath, has assailed the judgment of conviction dated 4th February, 2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad-hoc), Barpeta in Sessions Case No. 30/1995 convicting him under Sections 325/307 IPC and sentencing to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 4(four) years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand), in default simple imprisonment for 2(two) months for the offence under Section 307 IPC and also to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2(two) years, coupled with the fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand), in default simple imprisonment for 2(two) months for the offence under Section 325 IPC.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that on 4th August, 1993 at about 10:30 Am, the accused/appellant caused grievous hurt on the person of the injured with the help of a Dao and with a view to kill him in a Tea Stall belonging to the PW-1. On receipt of the FIR lodged by PW-1 on 4th August, 1993, Patacharkuchi Police Station/Case No. 189/1993 was registered under Section 326 IPC. Thereafter, the I/C, Jalah Outpost being entrusted with the investigation of the case. He carried out the same and in due course submitted the charge-sheet under Sections 326/307 IPC. The case was thereafter committed to the Court of sessions by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Barpeta, as the offence under Section 307 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed on 19th April, 1996 under Sections 326/307 IPC and the accused/appellant being read over and explained the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the trial started.

(3.) During trial, the prosecution examined 6(six) witnesses including the first informant (PW-1) and the Doctor (PW-5), who had examined the injured. The learned trial Court raising the following points having answered them in favour of the prosecution with the aforesaid conviction and sentences against the accused/appellant, he has preferred this appeal.