IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the intention, knowledge, and circumstances are crucial in determining criminal liability under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The court also considered the impact of the appellant's mental health condition on the case.

JUDGMENT :

MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.

1. Heard Ms. Meghali Barman, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant. Also heard Ms. S. H. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This Criminal Appeal has been registered on receipt of an appeal petition, by the appellant, namely, Shri Digamoni Das, through the Superintendent, District Jail, Biswanath Chariali, impugning the judgment dated 31.05.2019, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Biswanath Chariali in Sessions Case No. 3/2013, whereby the present appellant was convicted under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. The appellant was also convicted under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellant was, however, acquitted of charge under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant Criminal Appeal, in brief, are as follows:

(i) That on 04.10.2012, one Shri Parasmoni Borthakur had lodged an FIR before Officer-In-Charge of Biswanath Chariali Police Station, inter-alia, alleging that, on that day, at about 10.00 AM, when his uncle, namely, Paresh Borthakur, who is a priest of Jagdamba Temple, Borolasil situated at Biswanath Ghat, was on his way to the temple, the appellant all of a sudden attacked him with a sharp “dao” in front of his house and caused grievous injuries to him. The injured had to be admitted in Biswanath Chariali Hospital.

(ii) On receipt of the said FIR, Biswanath Chariali Police Station Case No. 254/2012 was registered under Section 341/326/307 of the Indian Penal Code and the investigation was initiated.

(iii) Ultimately, on completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet bearing No. 127/2012 dated 25.10.2012 was laid, against the present appellant under Section 341/326/307 of the Indian Penal Code.

(iv) The case being exclusively triable by the Court of Session, it was committed to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Biswanath Chariali by the Committal Court i.e. the Court of learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Biswanath Chariali. The appellant faced the trial remaining on bail.

(v) On 19.02.2013, charges under Section 341/326/307 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the present appellant. Same on being read over and explained to him, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(vi) During the trial, the prosecution side examined eight (08) witnesses to bring home the charges against the present appellant. The appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, during which he denied the truthfulness of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and pleaded his innocence. He led no evidence in his defence.

(vii) Ultimately, by the judgment which has been impugned in this appeal, the appellant was convicted and sentenced in the manner, as already described in Paragraph No. 2 hereinabove.

4. The point to be determined in this appeal is that as to whether the Trial Court was right in convicting and sentencing the appellant, namely, Shri Digamoni Das under Section 326 and Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. Before considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides, let us go through the evidence which is available on record.

6. PW-1, namely, Parasmoni Borthakur, who is the first informant of the case, has deposed that on 04.10.2012, at about 10.00 AM when his uncle Poresh Borthakur was on his way for performing puja in the temple situated at Biswanath Ghat, the appellant was sitting on the road in front of his house. PW-1 has deposed that when his uncle asked the appellant to work in his house on da