Conviction under attempted murder altered to simpler assault due to lack of corroborative evidence and reliance on informant's testimony, allowing for probation under the law.

JUDGMENT :

This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant challenging the judgment of conviction dated 29.11.2005 and sentence dated 01.12.2005 passed by Shri Arun Kumar, the learned Special Judge-cum-1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Special Case No. 14/01/12/02, by which the Appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for Seven years.

The Appellant is also convicted for the offence under Section 341 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one month.

The Appellant is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) payable to the injured Informant, without mentioning the relevant Section.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the Informant had lodged this F.I.R. alleging that on

21.04.1998, at 12.00 noon, while he was returning to his house by the main road of the market and when he reached near Sony Watch shop of the accused- Appellant, namely Annu Verma, the accused called him to the shop and abused him by condemning that he was doing Rangdari and when the Informant objected, the accused caught his collar and began to assault him with fists. When the informant protested, then the accused took up the knife kept in the shop and assaulted the Informant with knife in the belly, armpit, left arm and on head causing injuries to him. Thereafter, the Informant raised hullah and the witnesses arrived there and carried the informant to the Nursing Home for treatment of the injuries. It is also alleged that prior to occurrence the accused had demanded vehicle from the Informant and when he refused to give him, then the accused had threatened him on that day and due to that reason the accused has committed this offence to the Informant.

3. Heard Mr. Kaushal Kishore Mishra, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Prabir Kr.Chatterjee, learned Spl.P.P. for the State.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law.

It is submitted that the learned Trial court has not considered with regard to non- examination of the independent witness or Investigating Officer of the case which has prejudiced the case of the Appellant as the Appellant could not get an opportunity to ask question regarding the place of occurrence.

It is submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the place of occurrence.

It is submitted that the learned Trial Court has not taken notice with regard to nature of injuries which are simple in nature.

It is submitted that the learned Trial Court has convicted the Appellant only on the basis of statement of the Informant who is also involved in a case of kidnapping of a girl which shows the conduct of the Informant.

It is submitted that there is contradiction in the evidences of the prosecution witnesses, hence the impugned judgment and sentence may be set aside and this Criminal Appeal may be allowed.

5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has opposed the submission and submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and Sentence are fit and proper and no interference is required from this Court.

It is submitted that there is direct allegation against the Appellant in the F.I.R. for assaulting the Informant on the various parts of his body. It is submitted that several prosecu