Point of Law: In order to determine whether an offence under section 307 IPC is made out, crucial fact to be considered is intention and knowledge of appellant with which injuries were inflicted and not gravity of injury.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. A. Tewari, learned Amicus Curiae. Also heard Mr. P. Barthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging the judgment and order dated 31.07.2017 passed by the learned Asstt. Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar in Sessions Case No. 57/2015, whereby the accused/appellant was convicted under Sections 307/326 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7(seven) years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-for the offence under Section 307 IPC, in default of payment of fine, he has to suffer another period of one year. Further, the appellant was also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7(seven) years and also to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/-for the offence under Section 326 IPC, in default to payment of fine, he has to suffer simple imprisonment for another period of one year. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that the informant who is the wife of the injured, lodged an FIR on 29.09.2013 before the Officer-in-Charge, Udharbond Police Station stating interalia that on 28.09.2013 at around 9 p.m. while her husband Sampad Lal Rabidas was returning home from Doyapur Tea Estate, the appellant armed with a sharp dao, intercepted him on the road. As the accused/appellant tried to give a dao blow on his neck with an intention to kill him, he resisted him with his left hand, as a result of which, the dao blow fell on his hand, thereby his wrist joint has been severed. Having heard hue and cry, the neighbouring people came to the spot and saved the life of the victim.

4. On receipt of the complaint, a case was registered vide Udharbond P.S. Case No. 169/2013 under Section 341/307/326 IPC and investigation was commenced. During investigation, the statement of the witnesses were recorded and one dao with blood stain was seized. The injured was taken to the hospital. After collection of injury report, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused/appellant under Sections 341/307/326 IPC before the court of CJM, Cachar, Silchar. As the offence under Section 307 IPC is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the case was committed accordingly.

5. During trial in the Sessions Court, charge was framed under Section 341/307/326 IPC which was read over and explained to the accused/appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove the guilt of the accused/appellant, the prosecution examined 12(twelve) witnesses. The accused/appellant did not adduce any evidence in support of his defence. After completion of trial, the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein incriminating materials found in the evidence of the witnesses were put to him to which he denied the same and pleaded his innocence.

7. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Asstt. Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar convicted the accused/appellant as aforesaid. Hence, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

8. Mr. A. Tewari, learned Amicus Curiae has argued that the appellant was convicted for 7 years. However, since the date of judgment, the appellant has been detained in custody and has completed six years in jail hazot. The appellant may be released by undergone the period which he detained in custody. It is further submitted that the fine amount imposed by the learned trial court is excessive which is required to be reduced. It is also contended that the appellant is a poor person and he is not in a position to pay the said amount.

9. On the other hand, Mr. P. Barthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant by stating that the conviction recorded by the learned trial court was as per provision of law. As the offence against the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt which cannot be interfered by this Court.

10. I have consid