RANKA SAHU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused, appellant herein, faced trial in G.R. Case No. 449 of 1983, under sections 323 and 324, I.P.C. Upon hearing, the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chatrapur, found him guilty under both the sections and consequently convicted and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months, for the offence under section 323, I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under section 324, I.P.C. On appeal, the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur, confirmed the conviction and sentences recorded by the trial court. Feeling aggrieved, the accused has come up to this Court by filing the present revision.

(2.) Shortly stated, the prosecution case is that on 11.8.83 at about 7 a.m. informant Jura Mohanty (P.W. 1) had been to irrigate his land which adjoins the land of the accused. Seeing him, the accused who was present there, hurled abuses at him in filthy language, asking as to why he opened the water channel and so saying he dealt a spade blow on his head causing bleeding injury. It is the further case of the prosecution that the accused also gave blows on the waist, back and thigh of the informant with wooden handle of the spade. Soon after the occurrence the informant approached the local police and lodged F.I.R. Ext. 1 whereupon a case was registered, investigation was taken up, in course of which the informant was sent for medical examination and on close of investigation, charge sheet was laid against the accused to stand, his trial under sections 323, 324 and 294, I.P.C. The defence plea was one of denial and false implication.

(3.) Charge was framed under sections 323 and 324, I.P.C. and to bring home the said charge prosecution examined seven witnesses including the doctor. Learned trial court mainly relying upon the evidence of the informant P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, the alleged eye-witnesses to the occurrence, coupled with the medical evidence of P.W. 5, convicted and sentenced the accused as hereinbefore stated. Upon appeal, the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge declined to interfere with the lower courts findings and consequently dismissed the appeal.