The court upheld the conviction of the accused under Section 326 IPC for causing grievous injury, but granted the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act considering the lapse of time and the accused being a woman.

Judgment :

S.S. Mishra, J.

1.The present Criminal Revision filed under Sections 401 and 396 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 02.08.2011 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur in Criminal Appeal No.62/2010 (CRLA No.90/2007 GDC), whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Patrapur in G.R. Case No.21 of 2003 has been confirmed.

2.The petitioner was subjected to prosecution in Jarada P.S. Case No.15 of 2003 for the offence punishable under Sections 294/326 of I.P.C.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that, on 16.02.2003 at about 7.00 A.M., the present petitioner being the accused constructed a temporary ridge on the danda, as a result of which, the water could not get drained out. When the wife of the informant came out from the house and opposed to construct the ridge, the accused uttered in obscene language and assaulted her by means of wooden plank, as a result of which her left eye was damaged. Thereafter, she was brought to Patrapur medical and subsequently referred to Somepetta medical. It was further alleged that due to the medical treatment of his wife, the informant lodged the F.I.R.belatedly. The informant lodged a written report before the O.I.C., Jarada P.S. against the petitioner which was registered as Jarada P.S. Case No.15 of 2003 for the offence punishable under Section 326 of I.P.C. During investigation, the I.O. visited the spot, examined the informant, witnesses, issued injury requisitions in favour of the injured for medical treatment, seized the flat bamboo and bed head ticket of the injured. After completion of investigation, the I.O. submitted the charge-sheet against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 294/326 of I.P.C.

4. Heard Mr. Bijaya Kumar Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. K. Ragada, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

5. To bring home charges, the prosecution had examined 12 witnesses. Out of them, P.W.7 was the informant in this case, who was the husband of P.W.1, the injured. PWs. 2, 5, 6, 8 and 9 were the witnesses to the occurrence, whereas P.Ws.3 and 4 were the witnesses to the seizure. P.W.10 was the Medical Officer, who examined P.W.1. P.W.12 was the independent witness and P.W.11 was the I.O. in this case.

6. P.Ws.1 & 7 were very consistent and were corroborated by the evidence of all other witnesses. The seizure of the weapon of offence had also been proved on record through the evidence of P.Ws.3 & 4. P.Ws.5 & 6 had also disclosed in their testimony that P.W.1 was assaulted by the accused-petitioner, resulting in the injury causing damage to the left eye of the P.W.1. P.W.10, the doctor who examined P.W.1, the injured had stated in his testimony that he had found three injuries sustained by P.W.1. Out of which, injury No.1 was simple but other injuries on the left eye of the victim were grievous in nature.

7. Taking into consideration the evidence in its entirety, the learned trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 326 of I.P.C., however, acquitted her for offence under Section 294 of I.P.C. While awarding the sentence to the petitioner, the learned Trial Court was very lenient because the accused-petitioner is a lady of 40 years and in a spur of moment, the incident had taken place. Therefore, the learned trial Court sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo further S.I. for thirty days.

8. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 17.08.2007 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Patrapur in G.R. Case No.21 of 2003 was called in question by filing Criminal Appeal No.62 of 2010 (CRLA No.90/2007 GDC) before the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur by the petitioner. The learned Appellate Court meticulously dealt with the evidence recorded by the prosecution and appreciated the judgment of the trial Court. While confirming the