D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.) THE sole appellant Chaitan @ Chaitanya Pradhan was charged with, tried and convicted for the offence under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years and a fine of Rs. 2000/ - by the lst Additional Sessions Judge. Chaibasa vide order dated 20.09.1999 passed in Sessions Trial No. 208 of 1994. The appellant has challenged the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence. Briefly stated, the facts of the case is that in the evening of 20.4.1993 at about 8.00 PM, the informant namely Rishikesh Pradhan (PW1) after having his dinner, was sitting in front of his house by the side of the road. The accused Chaitan came there flashing torch and began abusing the informant as to why he had shown his house to the police. While so abusing, he whipped out a knife, aiming a blow at the informant. In his attempt to ward off the blow, the informant sustained injury on the thumb of his right hand, but he could not prevent the knife blow inflicting grievous injury on his abdomen. On his alarms, witnesses namely, Motilal Pradhan (PW8), Arkhit Pradhan (PW5), Rajeshwar Pradhan (PW9), Gauri Shankar and Kriti Pradhan came running to him, but by the time they arrived there, the accused had fled away. The informant was promptly taken to the hospital where he was provided medical treatment as indoor patient. The motive attributed for the assault is that in the morning of the previous day, while the informant was sitting at a cycle repairing shop in his village, the police arrived and on being asked by them, he showed the house of the accused Chaitan @ Chaitanya Pradhan to them. It was this grudge which the accused had borne against the informant.
(2.) AT the trial, the prosecution has examined altogether 10 witnesses including the informant (PW1), the doctor namely, Dr. Kailash Nath (PW4), mother and sister of the informant namely, Indumoni Devi and Sarti Kumari (PW2 and PW6) respectively, besides, co -villagers of the informant. The prosecution has however failed to examine the investigating officer. On considering the evidences and placing reliance upon the testimonies of the informant, his mother and sister as also the evidence of the doctor, the trial court had recorded its finding of guilt against the appellant for the aforesaid offence and had sentenced him accordingly.
(3.) THE main ground on which the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence has been assailed by the appellant is that no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out even on the basis of the entire evidence on record. Learned Counsel for the appellant elaborates that though the doctor (PW4) has claimed that the injury found on the abdomen of the informant was grievous in nature, but the doctor has not explained as to the basis on which he has opined that the injury was grievous. Learned Counsel explains that though, the doctor has found two separate injuries - one on the abdomen and another on the thumb of the informant, but both the injuries were sustained by a single blow only, as per own admission of the informant and there being no repetition of the assault, the circumstance amply demonstrate that the assailant had no intention whatsoever to cause death of the informant. Adverting to the other grounds, learned Counsel submits that though the F.I.R. mentions the names of several persons as witnesses who had purportedly arrived immediately on hearing alarms of the informant at the place of occurrence, but significantly, neither the mother nor the sister of the informant have been named as the persons present at the place and time of occurrence or soon thereafter. Yet, both the mother and the sister of the informant have been examined as material witnesses by the prosecution and both of them claim to have seen the occurrence from the beginning and also to have given statements to the police under Section 161 Cr. P.C., although, there appears no such statements given by them to the investigating officer. Learned Counsel argues that the above inconsistencies and contradictions appearing in the evidence of the mother and sister of the informant could not be brought on record on account of non -examination of the investigating officer causing thereby serious prejudice to the defence. Learned Counsel adds further that there is discrepancy in the evidence regarding the actual place of occurrence also and the exact location of the place of occurrence could possibly have been described by the investigating officer, since the informant does not offer any adequate description, nor do the witnesses. Learned Counsel further submits that none of the independent witnesses have supported the prosecutions case, nor offered any corroboration to the evidence of the informant and, therefore, under such circumstance, the trial court has committed serious error leading to miscarriage of justice by placing implicit reliance upon the testimony of the informant and gaining support from the statements of the informants own family members namely, his mother and sister, although, neither of the witnesses were earlier tested by the investigating officer during the investigation. It is lastly submitted that the sentence, as imposed upon the appellant, is also severe and that the trial court has not considered the fact that the alleged motive attributed to the appellant is very weak and further, the circumstance in which the occurrence took place suggest that it was at the spur of the moment that the quarrel ensued between the informant and the accused.;