The court modified the conviction from attempted murder to causing hurt, finding insufficient evidence of intent to kill under Section 307.

JUDGMENT :

PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Present criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.09.2006 passed by learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.), Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 148 of 1994 / 241 of 2003, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been held guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. of five years along with fine of Rs. 200/- with default stipulation.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 02.10.1992 at about 8:00 P.M., the present appellant came to the house of the informant under drunken state in search of his wife and brother, who have taken shelter at the house of informant due to fear of the appellant. It is further alleged that the appellant started quarreling with informant’s husband and also gave a knife blow on his chest with intention to kill him. The injured was brought to Central Hospital, Titatanr for treatment and thereafter, he was referred to Central Hospital, Dhanbad for better treatment, where fardbeyan of informant Sundarwa Devi was recorded by S.I. of Katras Police Station and a formal FIR being Katras P.S. Case No. 418/1992 was registered for the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C.

4. The case was investigated and after submission of charge sheet, cognizance was taken. Thereafter, the case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial. After conclusion of trial, the appellant has been held guilty and sentenced as stated above.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence has submitted that the appellant has falsely been implicated in this case due to grudge and enmity. The witnesses examined by prosecution clearly depicted that the occurrence took place when the appellant, under drunken state was searching of his wife and brother, who were not found at house, but were present at the house of the informant. It is also apparent that scuffle took place in a sudden manner without any pre- meditation and the injury sustained by the informant’s husband was not sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 307 of the I.P.C. regarding intention and knowledge is absolutely lacking in this case.

6. It is further submitted that P.W.-7 Dr. Anjan Kumar Dey has found two cut incised injuries; one of the left side of chest on anterior axillary line 1” x ½” x 1” and another over middle of sternum slightly to the right ½” x ½” x ½”. Although, injuries are opined to be grievous in nature, but no opinion has been specifically given as to how the injuries were grievous in nature. Admittedly, there was no operation of the injuries, rather after treatment about 15 days in the Hospital, the injured was discharged. This fact was admitted by P.W.-1 injured Sukhdev Bhuiya. Therefore, at best, offence under Section 324 of the I.P.C. is attracted in this case, for which, the appellant has remained in custody for about 09 months.

7. It is further submitted that the occurrence as alleged, has happened in the year 1992 and more than three decades have been elapsed, as such, the appellant has sustained the rigor of trial for about three decades and has sufficiently been punished for his guilt. Hence, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the appellant is liable to be set aside.

8. Per contra, learned APP appearing for the State has controverted the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and