G. B. PATTANAIK, J.

( 1 ) PETITIONER along with his father and sister were convicted under Ss. 307, 324 and 325/314, Penal Code, by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Athagarh, and were sentenced differently for their conviction on different counts. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge found that the Assistant Sessions Judge had awarded the sentence without hearing the petitioner on the question of sentence and accordingly remitted the matter to the learned Assistant Sessions Judge to hear the petitioner along with other accussed persons on the question of sentence. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, thereafter heard the accused persons and passed different sentences. The conviction of the petitioner along with others passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge was challenged in appeal and the learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the conviction and sentence of the two other accused persons other than the petitioner and so far as the petitioner is concerned, his conviction under Ss. 307 and 325, I. P. C. was also set aside, but petitioner's conviction under S. 324, I. P. C. was affirmed and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and it is this conviction and sentence of the petitioner which are being challenged in the present revision.

( 2 ) PETITIONER's conviction under S. 324, I. P. C. is on account of the fact that on 9-2-1981, a dispute arose with regard to sharing of biri crop which had been jointly grown on the Mahanadi Patha and in course of which Sankarsan (P. W. 1) was severely assaulted by the petitioner by means of a Katari. Sankarsan lodged the F. I. R. (Ext. 1) on the basis of which the police ragistered a case and started investigation and on completion of investigation submitted the charge-sheet.

( 3 ) PROSECUTION examined as many as 12 witnesses of whom P. W. 1 is the injured and P. Ws. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence; P. Ws. 5 and 9 are the post-occurrence witnesses; P. W. 10 is a seizure witness; P. W. 11 is the Lady Assistant Surgeon who had examined the injured (P. W. 1) and the injury report is Ext. 4 and P. W. 12 is the Investigating Officer. On the defence side also three witnesses were examined. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has sustained the conviction of the petitioner relying upon the evidence of the injured (P. W. 1) which gets ample corroboration from the evidence of P. Ws. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 as well as the medical evidence of the doctor (P. W. 11 ).

( 4 ) AT the outset of the argument in this revision, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that from the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge it appears that the petitioner was unrepresented in the appeal at the time of argument and, therefore, the matter should be remitted back for rehearing of the appeal. In support of this contention, the learned counsel places reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kahira v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1981 (Supp) SCC 76, as well as the decision of this Court in the case of S. Mohan Rao v. Bhubaneswar Rath, (1984) 58 Cut LT 585. In the Supreme Court case on the date when the criminal appeal was taken up for hearing, no one was present for the appellant. The learned Judge also did not state in the order that the appeal was being dismissed on merits or that the reasons for the dismissal of the appeal would be given later. The order noted in the order-sheet was to the effect :"no one appears on behalf of the accused-appellant. The appeal is dismissed in default. " thus the appeal was dismissed for default of appearance of the appellant. The Supreme Court noted the aforesaid fact, namely that the High Court dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the appeal for the default of appearance of the appellant and in that context it was observed that there has not been a proper disposal of the appeal preferred by the appellant and the appeal could not be dismissed by the learned Judge for def