BARMAN TAYE Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner assails, in the present revision, the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment and order, dated 22.12.2004, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ad hoc), North Lakhimpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 2(1)/2002, dismissing the appeal and upholding thereby the judgment and order, dated 4.2.2002, passed by the learned Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur in GR Case No. 97/2000, convicting the accused -petitioner under Sections 448 and 326 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs. 1,000 and, in default of payment of fine, suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

(2.) THE case against the accused -petitioner, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be described, thus, on 1.1.2000, at about 8 P.M., accused Barman Taye, armed with a dao (machete), entered into the room of Bhabani Pawe by pushing open the door thereof and caught hold of the hand of Bhabani Pawe. On hearing Bhabani's screams, her sister -in -law, Aizo Pawe, who was also sleeping in the same room, woke up and, on lighting of a lamp by Aizo Pawe, both Bhabani as well as her sister -in -law, Aizo, saw the accused inside their room. The accused took out a khukri, which he had kept tied to his waist, and gave with the same a blow on Bhabani and when Bhabani tried to save herself by raising her hand, her left thumb got severely cut and when her sister -in -law Aizo Pawe, moved forward to save Bhabani, Aizo too was given a blow, the blow so given, having caused cut injury on the left palm of Aizo. Hearing hue and cry raised in the room, neighbours came running and the accused fled away. Both the injured were taken to nearby Primary Health Centre and from there, they were shifted to Civil Hospital, North Lakhimpur, where they remained under treatment for about three weeks. While the injured were still receiving treatment at the said hospital, Aizo's father -in -law, Tombu Ram Pawe, lodged a written Ejahar (Ext.1). Based on this Ejahar and treating the same as FIR, Lakhimpur Police station Case No. 79/2000 under Section 448/326 IPC was registered and, on completion of investigation, police laid charge -sheet against the accused under Section 448/326 IPC.

(3.) IN support of their case, prosecution examined as many as five witnesses. The accused was, then, examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and in his examination aforementioned, the accused denied that he had committed the offences alleged to have been committed by him, the case of the defence being that of denial. No evidence was, however, adduced by the defence.