NAVIN SINHA, J. - (1.) The appellant­State questions the acquittal of the respondent from the charge under Section 302 I.P.C. even while his conviction under Section 323 I.P.C. has been affirmed.
(2.) The assault on the deceased is said to have taken place on 27.03.1990 with the pointed end of wooden plough used for tilling the land. PW­4 and PW­5 are the family members of the deceased. The latter is also an injured witness. The submission on behalf of the appellant was that in view of the ocular evidence available with regard to the assault, the High Court erred in acquitting the respondent on the reasoning that though the assault was with the sharp end of the plough which had nails, there was no corresponding injury as the nature of injury found could only be by blunt hard substance. The acquittal, based on the mere opinion of the Doctor PW­6, on the aforesaid ground was unjustified. PW­4 and PW­5 have not been doubted as eye­witnesses or that the latter was injured in the same incident.
(3.) Mr. Anukul Chandra Pradhan, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, submitted that before acquittal he has already completed 14 years 6 months and 7 days of custody.;