The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellant's assault with a deadly weapon, causing grievous injuries to the victim, demonstrated the intention and knowledge to commit murder, satisfying the elements of the offence under section 307 of the IPC.

JUDGMENT :

Subhash Chand, J.

This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 11.08.2011 and order of sentence dated 16.08.2011 passed in S.T. No.436 of 2006 arising out of Karra P.S. Case No.18 of 2006 corresponding to G.R. No. 209 of 2006 by the learned 1st Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti whereby the learned court below had convicted the appellant for the offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced with rigorous imprisonment of five years and a fine of Rs.3,000/-. In default of payment of fine the appellant/convict was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three months.

2. The brief facts leading to this criminal appeal are that the informant Tulsi Ram had given the written information with these allegations that on 13.04.2006 all have gone to sleep after having taken food in night. In the intervening night of 13.04.2006 at 2 O'clock the informant felt pain in his stomach and he went out of the house to respond the call of nature in the nearby bari. When he came back to his house Mahadeo Ram, son of late Lakhan Ram armed with tangi came and assaulted him. First blow was given by Mahadeo Ram on his head which was resisted by him and he sustained injury on his left hand. He shouted for rescue but the accused continued to assault with tangi which hit on his head, on his left elbow, right thigh. In the meantime, his brother Kalinder Ram, his son Ashok Kumar and his father attracted there and the accused fled away. In injured condition, he was carried to Khunti hospital. From there he was referred to RIMS. It appeared that because the food was not given to Mahadeo Ram for some days by the informant, therefore he had made attempt to commit murder of informant. On this written information, the Case Crime No. 06 of 2006 was registered under section 307 read with 324 of IPC against the accused Mahadeo Ram. The investigating officer after concluded the investigation filed charge-sheet against Mahadeo Ram for the offence under section 307 and 324 of IPC to the concerned Magistrate. The court of Magistrate took cognizance and committed this case for trial to the court of sessions.

3. The Court of Additional Judicial Commissioner-III, Khunti framed charge against the accused for the offence under section 307 and 324 of IPC. The charge was read over and explained to him who denied the charge and claimed to face the trial.

4. On behalf of prosecution to prove the charge against the accused Mahadeo Ram in documentary evidence filed the written information exhibit-1, the signature on the written information of Jivdhan Ram Ganjhu as exhibit-1/1, formal FIR exhibit-2, injury report exhibit-3.

5. In oral evidence on behalf of prosecution examined PW-1 Ashok Kumar, PW2-Birendra Ram, PW3-Jagdish Mahadeo, PW4-Ram Narayan Ram, PW5-Tulsi Ram, PW6-Jivdhan Ram Ganjhu, PW7-Basant Saw, PW8- Khalindra Ram and PW9- Dr. Vijay Kumar.

6. The statement of accused under section 313 of Cr.PC was recorded, he denied the incriminating circumstances in evidence against him and refused to file any defense evidence.

7. Learned trial court after having heard the rival submission of leaned APP on behalf of the State and learned counsel on behalf of the accused, passed the impugned judgment of conviction vide order dated 11.08.2011 holding guilty the appellant Mahadeo Ram for the offence under section 307 of IPC and sentenced him vide order dated 16.08.2011 with imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.3,000/-and in default of payment of fine additional imprisonment of three months was directed to undergo.

8. Aggrieved from the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, this criminal appeal has been preferred on the ground that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by court below is bad in the eye of law and the learned trial court has not appreciated the evidence on record in proper prospective. There was no independent witness of the occurrence. All the witnesses were the interested