The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of evidence to determine the guilt of the accused and the appropriate sentencing based on the findings.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is preferred Against the Judgment of Conviction and order of sentence dated 08.12.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-II, Bokaro, in S.T. No.127 of 2000/Suppl. S.T. No.70 of 2003, whereby and where under the sole accused appellant namely Tarapad Mahatha was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 337, 323 and 324 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for six months each under Sections 504/323 of IPC, R.I. for two years under Section 324 of IPC and R.I. for one month under Section 337 of IPC and all the sentence were directed to run concurrently and further the appellant has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 447/307 of IPC.

2. Briefly stating the prosecution case is that on the basis of the written information given by the informant Prafful Kumar Mahtha (P.W.6), FIR has been lodged by the officer In-charge of Pindrazora P.S. As per written information, on 14.01.1996 at about 4 pm, niece (Bhagni) of the informant namely Pinki Kumari was playing with the son of his neighbour accused appellant Tarapad Mahatha in the kulli (passage) in front of his house, then there had some scuffle between them. On this, son of Tarapad Mahatha namely Bhuman Mahatha aged about 7 years went his house and narrated to his father about the scuffle. The above named accused appellant armed with axe came to the door of the informant and started abusing. On this, mother of the informant namely Dulari Bala Devi came out of the house and forbade him from abusing then, Tarapad Mahatha picked up a stone and threw it to her which hit her in stomach. Then the informant tried to stop the accused Tarapad Mahatha form assault then accused attacked the informant with the axe, which hit informant on his forehead causing bleeding injuries. Thereafter accused picked up a stone and threw it on the informant, which hit him on his hand. It is further mentioned that occurrence was witnessed by the mother of the informant and other neighbours.

3. On the basis of the written information, FIR has been lodged and after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the accused and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the charge was framed against the accused person on 24.06.2002 for the offence under Sections 447, 504, 337, 324, 323 and 307 of IPC and after the trial the accused appellant was convicted by the impugned Judgment of conviction and order of sentence as aforesaid, which is under challenge in this appeal.

4. Heard Syed Ramiz Zafar, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the sole appellant and Sardhu Mahato, APP appearing on behalf of the State.

5. Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the learned trial court has committed error in convicting the appellant, as it failed to appreciate the evidence in the right perspective. It is pointed out that the prosecution has not proved the very cause of occurrence, i.e. scuffle in between the niece of the informant and son of the appellant and also failed to examine the niece of the informant so as to prove the same. It is further submitted that there is no corroborative evidence on record to prove the assault on the mother of the informant and there is nothing on record to show that she was examined by the doctor and that the doctor found any injury on her person. It is pointed out that though the informant has alleged that he was assaulted by the appellant by axe, but the doctor did not find any sharp cutting injury on the person of the informant and the doctor only found simple injuries caused by hard and blunt substance. It is further submitted that from the medical evidence, no case is made out under Section 324 of IPC. It is submitted that there is no independent witness examined on behalf of the prosecution and both the parties belong to the same family and there is a dispute of landed property and as such, the appellant has been