The conviction under Section 324 IPC was modified to Section 323 IPC due to insufficient evidence of grievous harm, emphasizing the need for credible witness testimony and the burden of proof on the prosecution.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. Mishra, J.

Two appellants have conjointly filed the present Criminal Appeal challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.05.1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Balangir in Sessions Case No.59/27 of 1994 (arising out of G.R. Case No.226 of 1992 committed by the S.D.J.M., Balangir) convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 324 /34 of theIPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for a period of six months each.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the cattle belonging to Kapileswar Padhan had damaged the groundnut crop of the informant, Haladhar Sahu. Consequently, the informant began driving the cattle toward the house of Kapileswar Padhan. On the way, he met Kapileswar and complained about the damage caused by his cattle. At that moment, the accused persons, namely Bhimsen Sahu and his son Binod Sahu, began abusing the informant. Hearing the commotion, the informant’s brother, Premananda Sahu, rushed to the spot. There, accused Bhimsen caught hold of Premananda with one hand and delivered two to three fist blows to his face, injuring his left eye. Bhimsen then called out to his son to bring a tabli to kill Premananda. Meanwhile, accused Kapileswar restrained the informant, preventing him from intervening. Soon after, Binod returned with the tabli and struck a blow on Premananda’s head. Following the assault, all the accused persons fled from the scene. After the incident, the matter was reported to the police, leading to the registration of the F.I.R.

3. Initially, the prosecution set the criminal law into motion against three accused persons including the present appellants.

4. After the charge sheet was filed, the charges were framed against all the accused persons for the alleged commission of the offences punishable under Sections 307 /325/34 of the IPC.

5. The case of the appellants is a complete denial. On the stance of the denial the appellants claimed trial and all the accused persons faced the trial.

6. In order to establish the case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses. P.W.3 was the injured. P.W.4 is the brother of the injured and the informant in the present case. P.Ws.1, 2 and 5 are the independent witnesses to the occurrence whereas P.Ws.6 and 9 were the doctors, who have examined P.W.3. P.W.8 was the Investigating Officer of the case.

7. The learned trial Court, by relying upon the evidences of P.Ws.3, 4, 5, 6 and 9, arrived at the following findings:

“8. Now let me examine the evidence on record if the aforesaid blow with tabli was an attempt to commit murder of Premananda Sahu. According to P.W.3 only one blow was given to his head with tabli. P.W.4 also corroborates P.W.3 by saying that Binod dealt a single tabli blow on the head of P.W.3. The doctor also noticed one injury on the head of P.W.3. The doctor deposed that the patient was semi-conscious. He did not depose that the condition of the patient was serious. He simply deposed that the patient was having severe vomiting and he referred him to the District Head-quarters Hospital, Balangir for further treatment and X-Ray of the skull. He did not opine that the injury was sufficient to cause death of the victim. According to doctor’s evidence, the injury was a lacerated one and the victim did not say that the blow was given on the sharp side of the weapon. The incident arose out of a quarrel on the issue of damage of crops by the cattles. In view of all these ingredients I am of opinion that prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused persons for offence u/s.