The court upheld the conviction under Section 323 IPC for simple hurt, affirming absence of intent for murder under Section 302 IPC despite the victim's death.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. Mishra, J.

The present Criminal Appeal, is filed by the appellant under Sections 374 of the Cr. P.C., assailing the judgment and order dated 07.09.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in S.T. No. 4/5 of 1998, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the accused-appellant U/s.323 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year and imposed a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo further R.I. for one month more.

2. The deceased, Dukhu, had been working for about ten years in the house of Sujan Oram of village Nirgunpada. He lived in his master’s house as a Kuthia (servant) and was engaged in grazing cattle. On 22.03.1997, while grazing the cattle of Sujan Oram at Simelmunda field near the paddy field of the accused, the cattle strayed into the accused’s land. Annoyed by this, the accused assaulted the deceased with a bamboo lathi. The incident was witnessed by Rajkumar Oram, a companion of the deceased, who even protested against such assault.

On the following day, i.e., on 23.03.1997, a panchayat meeting was convened where the accused admitted his guilt. In the said meeting it was resolved that he would pay Rs.1,000/- as compensation towards the medical treatment of the deceased. Pursuant to this, the deceased was taken for treatment at Gopalpali under a private doctor. However, as his condition deteriorated, Sujan Oram brought him back and left him at his house.

In the meantime, the deceased’s father, Lado Khadia, who had gone to visit his daughter at Thama, returned home on 28.03.1997. By that time, Sujan Oram had already left the deceased at his house. On his return, the deceased narrated the entire incident to his father. Soon thereafter, the deceased succumbed to his injuries.

Following the death of his son, Lado Khadia lodged a written report at Ainthapali Police Station, on the basis of which P.S. Case No. 38/97 under Section 302 IPC was registered. In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer visited the spot, examined the witnesses, conducted the inquest over the dead body and sent it for post-mortem examination. The post-mortem report revealed that the deceased died due to shock resulting from injuries to the spinal cord, lungs and mesenteric vessels.

Upon finding prima facie evidence, the Investigating Officer arrested the accused and forwarded him to Court. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused under Section 302 IPC. The accused, however, pleaded innocence, and his defence was one of denial and false implication.

3. To establish the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined a total of twelve(12) witnesses. P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 are the father, mother and brother of the accused respectively. P.W.4 was a witness to the inquest of the dead body of the deceased. P.W.5 was a private medical practitioner, who had examined the deceased. P.Ws.6 and 7 were seizure witnesses to the weapon of the offence. P.W.8 was a Havildar of Ainthapalli P.S., who escorted the dead body for P.M. P.W.9 was the employer of the deceased. P.W.10 was also grazing cattle with the deceased who was also an eye-witness. P.W.11 was the Doctor, who conducted the P.M. P.W.12 was the Investigating Officer.

On the other hand, no witness has been examined on behalf of the defence.

4. By appreciating and analyzing the evidence brought on record by the prosecution and taking into account the defense plea eventually the learned trial Court arrived at the following conc