The central legal point established in the judgment is the analysis of the intention and knowledge of the accused in committing the assault, the reliability of the injured witness's testimony, and the applicability of the respective sections of the IPC to the actions of the accused.

Appellant, Dilip Kumar Gupta has been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 341 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one month, under Section 504 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year, under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six years as well as to pay fine appertaining to Rs.2000/- and in default thereof, to undergo R.I. for three months vide judgment of conviction dated 01.06.2015 and order of sentence dated 06.06.2015 passed by Addl. District & Sessions Judge, IIIrd, Kaimur at Bhabhua in Sessions Trial No.163/2010.

2. PW.6, Ram Kali Kunwar mother of injured, Chitranjan Sharma (PW.5) submitted written report on 19.07.2009 alleging inter alia that on the same day at about 03:00 PM Dilip Kumar Gupta whose cowshed lies adjacent north to her house, came and closed the drain whereupon her son Chitranjan Sharma protested as, the sewerage of the village pass through the same. More particularly, it happens to be a rainy season and during such season flow is not obstructed so, you should not close the drain. On account thereof, both of them entered into an altercation. During midst thereof, Dilip Kumar Gupta gone to his cowshed and returned back with farsa (Fahura) and then, after abusing her son gave blow from back side of farsa (Fahura) striking over left temporal reason as a result of which, blood oozen out from his ear as well as nose. During course of assault, he also sustained hurt over his forehead as a result of which, there happens to be swelling. He became unconscious, fell down. On hue and cry Pappu Bind (name examined) Radheshyam Kushwaha (PW.3), Ramesh Sharma (PW.1), Munir Sharma (not examined) others came, intervened as a result of which life of her son could be saved. After coming to know about the occurrence, her another son Tulsi Sharma returned back from Badhar along with his family members who lifted Chitranjan Sharma for treatment.

3. After registration of Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No.70/2009 investigation commenced and concluded by way of submission of charge sheet, facilitating the trial meeting with the ultimate result, subject matter of instant appeal.

4. Defence case as is evident from mode of cross-examination as well as statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is of complete denial. It has also been pleaded that prosecution party was forcibly flowing water towards land of the accused whereupon, there was protest as a result of which, this false case has been registered levelling false and frivolous allegation. However, neither ocular nor documentary evidence has been adduced in defence.

5. Prosecution, in order to substantiate its case had examined altogether twelve PWs those are PW.1 Ramesh Sharma, PW.2 Indrasan Sharma, PW.3 Radheshyam Kushwaha, PW.4 Surendra Sharma, PW.5 Chitranjan Sharma, PW.6 Ram Kali Kunwar, PW.7 Tulsi Sharma, PW.8 Sri Ram Bind, PW.9 Jagarnath Bind, PW.10 Pappu Bind, PW.11 Dr. Arun Pratap Singh and PW.12 Ram Sahan Singh. Side by side had also exhibited Ext.I-Written report, Ext.2-original injury report, Ext.3 supplementary injury report, discharged slip issued by BHU Ext.4, Formal FIR, Ext.5 Police Requisition, Ext.6. As stated above neither ocular nor documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of defence.

6. While challenging the finding having been recorded by the learned lower court, it has been submitted on behalf of appellant that from the evidence available on the record, it is evident that irrespective of having a sharp cut weapon in his hand, appellant had not inflicted the blow from its edge side rather whatever been alleged is that blow was given by back side of the weapon and that depicts that appellant was not at all carrying intention or knowledge to commit murder, rather it was simple assault, and that being so, no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out whereupon the conviction recorded against the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC is not at all maintainable. It has also been submit