Pradeep Kumar, J. - (1.) NOBODY appears on behalf of the appellant on repeated calls. In absence of lawyer for the appellant, on the request of Court, Shri Jagannath Mahato appeared in the case on behalf of the appellant as Amicus, Curie. Heard learned Counsel for the State.
(2.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.01.2000 passed by Shri P.K. Sinha No. 11, learned 1 Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Sessions Trial Case No. 504 of 1999, by which judgment, he found the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and he also found the appellant guilty under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. However, both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. It is submitted by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that it will appear from the prosecution case as disclosed in the F.I.R. as also from the evidences of the witnesses that since the accused -appellant, Birendra Singh Baraik was viewing cinema without ticket in the Sandhya Cinema Hall and the informant -injured, Kewal Bishwakarma ousted him from the cinema hall, that's why, to give him lesson, he was waiting with a 'Chhura' outside the cinema hall and when he came out from the cinema hall for going to his house after evening show was over, the appellant suddenly attacked him, and as such, there was no intention to commit the murder of the informant, rather the intention of the appellant was only to given him a lesson, and as such, the lenient view may be taken while convicting the appellant.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that since the accused -appellant gave repeated 'Chhura' blow on the vital part of body namely, the stomach and also near the pubic region of the injured -informant, he has rightly been convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code also.;