JUDGMENT :

This appeal is preferred against the Judgment of Conviction and order of sentence dated 02.06.2004 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, in S.T. No. 75 of 2002, whereby the sole accused appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence u/s 324 of IPC failing which the accused-appellant shall undergo S.I. for 3 months.

2. The allegations against the appellant arose in the wake of written report of Probhodh Goswami alleging therein that on 06.04.01 at about 9.30 am, he was sitting outside the house of Chitranjan Goswami along with his cousin Kartic Goswami. In the meantime, the accused Ranjeet Goswami accosted them with a sword and alleged that they were gossiping about him. The informant refuted the allegation. However, accused Ranjeet Goswami assaulted the informant by sword causing hurt on the left hand and neck of the informant.

3. On the basis of aforesaid written report, a formal FIR was lodged and the case was registered under Section 324 and 307 of IPC against the sole accused appellant and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in this case under Sections 324/307 of IPC and on the basis of which, cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The accused has pleaded not guilty to the charge explained to him and denied the allegation levelled against him and after trial, the learned court below passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which is under challenge in this appeal.

4. Heard Mr. Jai Prakash, the senior learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Manoj Mishra, APP appearing on behalf of the State.

5. Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, learned defence counsel contended that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law. It is contended that learned trial court did not consider that although the occurrence allegedly took place at 9.30 am in the village in the month of April, but no witness of the village came forward to support the prosecution case, except the close relatives. It is further contended that the appellant was a patient of mental ailment, which fact was amply proved by the investigating officer and corroborated by DW-1, but it could also not be considered by the learned court below and as such, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the court below is fit to be set-aside.

6. On the other hand the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State contended that the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded the sentence, accordingly there is no merit in the appeal and it is fit to be dismissed.

7. Having heard the parties and after going through the records, it is found that in order to substantiate the charges levelled against the sole accused appellant, the prosecution has been able to examine eight witnesses, out of which, PW – 7 Dr. J.N. Prasad Prakash, who had examined the injured and PW – 8 Sri R.B. Kumar is the I.O. of the case. The another witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution were PW – 1 Kartic Goswami, PW – 2 Shekhar Goswami, PW – 3 Devendra Nath Goswami, PW – 4 Chitranjan Goswami, PW – 5 Hardhan Goswami and PW – 6 Prabodh Kumar Goswami (informant).

On the other hand the defence witnesses DW – 1 Ganesh Goswami has also been examined on behalf of the sole appellant, who is the brother of the sole appellant Ranjeet Goswami.

8. Having gone through the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution PW – 1 Kartik Goswami in para 1 and 2, PW – 3 Devendra Nath Goswami in para 1 and PW – 5 Hardhan Goswami in para 2 and PW – 6 Prabodh Kumar Goswami (informant) in para – 1 & 2 in their depositions had consistently a