The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of evidence to determine the nature of the offences and the intention of the accused, as well as the consideration of the accused's circumstances in modifying the sentence.

ORDER :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

In the present revision the petitioners seek to challenge the judgment dated 20.08.2013 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar in Criminal Appeal No. 03 of 2007, whereby the judgment dated 15.09.2006 passed by Asst. Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar in Sessions Case No. 74 of 2002 was confirmed. By the aforementioned judgment, learned Asst. Sessions Judge (Trial Court) convicted the petitioners for the offence under Sections 323/326/307/34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for five years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for two months for the offence under Section 326 of IPC and R.I. for six months and fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo R.I. for two months for the offence under Section 323 IPC. All the aforementioned offences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 08.05.2002, at about 8 p.m. when the informant and his father were present in their house and were discussing about the marriage of their daughter, the petitioner-Lingaraj Sethi being armed with a tangia and the petitioner-Krushna Sethi armed with a lathi came to the spot and abused them in obscene language and demanded to know as to why they were discussing about him. Thereafter, the accused-Lingaraj Sethi dealt a blow with the tangia on the neck of victim, Daya Sethi and accused-Krushna dealt a blow with lathi on the hand of the said Daya Sethi. As a result of the injury, the victim sustained severe bleeding injuries. Since some villagers arrived, the petitioners fled away. The informant, Abhi Sethi lodged FIR before OIC, Buguda Police Station leading to registration of P.S. case and investigation was taken up. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons for the aforementioned offences.

The accused took the plea of denial.

Prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses including the informant, Abhi Sethi as P.W.-1 and injured, Daya Sethi as P.W.-4. Besides, the doctor, who had examined the injured after the occurrence and the I.O. were also examined as witnesses. Defence did not examine any witness, but proved certain documents from its side, which were marked as Exts. A, B and C.

The trial court after analyzing the evidence adduced by the prosecution held that the offence under Sections 341 and 506 are not made out. However, in so far as the offences under Sections 323, 326, 307 and 294 are concerned, the evidence clearly establishes the commission of the same. As such, the trial Court while acquitting the accused persons of the offence under Section 341/506 of IPC, convicted them for the offence under Section 323, 326, 307 and 294 of IPC and sentenced them as aforesaid. The petitioners carried the matter in appeal to the Court of Session, which was heard and disposed of by learned Addl. Sessions Judge. Several grounds were raised before the learned lower appellate Court but it was held that there was no infirmity or irregularity in the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the leaned trial Court and therefore, the order of the trial Court was confirmed.

Feeling further aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court in the present revision.

3. Heard Mr. A.R. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A. Pradhan, learned Addl. Standing Counsel of the State.

4. In assailing the impugned judgments, Mr. Dash contends that both the courts below have failed to appreciate the fact that there is clear evidence regarding previous enmity between the parties and hence the possibility of false implication could not have been ruled out. Secondly, learned courts below have failed to appreciate the material discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence of the informant and the injured which create a strong doubt in the case of the prosecution. It is also contended tha