OM PRAKASH SAHU Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a day labourer, who has been convicted u/s. 324 I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer further imprisonment for two months. Two contentions have been raised by Mr. D.C. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner. First, that the conviction of the accused u/s. 324 I.P.C. is not sustainable as the prosecution has failed to prove that the weapon used by the accused was a dangerous weapon set out in Section 324 I.P.C. The second submission is that the useful purpose would be served if the poor daily labourer is sent to jail. He sweats to earn and lives by hand and mouth. The incident is of petty nature and considering the status, standing and the facts and circumstances of the case, an appropriate sentence may be awarded.

(2.) As the questions posed also include, the question on merits of the case, I desired to hear Mr. A.K. Phukan, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam-cum Public Prosecutor, Assam as to whether this case may be disposed of on the basis of the findings reached by the Courts below. Mr. Phukhan candidly submitted that the case may be disposed on the findings of the court below.

(3.) It. is the fundamental principles of Criminal jurisprudence that the burden of proof to establish the charges against the accused is squarely and entirely on the prosecution. In short, the actus reus and mens rea must be proved by the prosecution except in some exceptional cases where the burden has been cast on the accused by the statutes. Now, the allegation against the accused is causing voluntary hurt by dangerous weapons or means. Let me first describe the injuries sustained by injured Bindeswar: One incised wound on the left side of the Buttock about 2 below the asourial spine. The injury is 1 x 1/2 X 3/4 in size. Weapon used-Pointed sharp; nature of injury-Simple. (Emphasis added) As such, it appears that Bindeswar, the injured, received a simple injury. The weapon was pointed and sharp as described. There is nothing to show that the weapon used could be a dangerous weapon or the hurt was caused by dangerous means. The injury was inflicted on the buttock of the injured, the non-vital part of the body.