JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.09.2003 passed by the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-IV, Bokaro, in S.T. No.131 of 2002, by which the sole appellant Satish Mandal was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 504 of the IPC and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC and imprisonment of one year for the offence punishable under Section 504 of the IPC and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case has arisen on the basis of the fardbeyan of Bhim Mandal, son of Ratu Mandal of village Narayanpur, P.S. Pindrajora in the district of Bokaro. The informant Bhim Mandal alleged in the said fardbeyan that on 12.09.2001 at about 7:30 am in the morning, Smt. Tuku Devi, wife of the sole appellant Satish Mandal was plucking the ladyfinger (vindi) in the field of the informant. Thereupon the wife of the informant intercepted her and asked her as to why she was plucking the said vegetable vindi from her bari (Agriculture Field) and both the wife of the informant and wife of the accused started quarrelling over the matter. At that time, the informant Bhim Mandal was busy in plantation of the Banyan tree in his bari (Agriculture field). He heard the abusive languages of the accused and rushed towards his khaliyan and asked Satish Mandal(Appellant) as to why he was taking side of his wife in the dispute between the ladies. Appellant Sastish Mandal inflicted Tangi blow on the head of informant Bhim Mandal causing bleeding injury. Bhim Mandal fell down on the ground and became unconscious. He was taken to hospital for treatment. His fardbeyan was recorded before A.S.I. R.S. Singh of Pindrajora P.S. Dist. Bokaro at Ideal Nursing Home, Chas Purlia Road on the same day at about 13 hours. The fardbeyan of informant Bhim Mandal was attested by two witnesses namely Praful Mandal and Mutuck Mandal.

3. On the basis of the fardbeyan Pindrajora P.S. case No.80 of 2001 dated 12.09.2001 u/sec. 323/324/341/307/504 IPC was registered and A.S.I. Sri R.S. Singh was entrusted to investigate the case.

4. After investigation charge sheet was submitted against the accused u/sec. 323,324,341/307/504 I.P.C. Accordingly cognizance was taken by the Ld. CJM, Bokaro. After completion of provision of u/sec. 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.

5. After commitment, the charges were framed by the learned court below on 4.06.2002 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 341/307/504 I.P.C. and after trial, the learned court below passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which is under challenge in this appeal.

6. Heard Mr. R.C.P. Sah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Shri Santosh Kumar Shukla APP appearing on behalf of the State.

7. Arguments on behalf of the counsel for the appellant:

Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the learned defence counsel submitted that the findings of the learned trial court below are contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and not according to the material evidences available on record. It has been pointed out that there are omissions and commissions in the impugned judgment, which are contrary to the settled principal of law and under the facts and circumstances of this case, learned trial court below ought to have given benefit of doubt to the appellant. It has further been contended on behalf of the appellants that not a single independent witness has been examined and all of them are relatives. It has further been pointed out that both the parties are related to each other and the sole appellant is said to be the vaisur ( brother-in-law) of informant’s wife and as a matter of fact, the informant had tried to outrage the modesty of the wife of the sole appellant finding her alone