Ocular evidence can sustain a conviction under IPC sections for assault even in the absence of medical testimony, reaffirming the principle of justice and proportionality in sentencing.

JUDGMENT :

SAVITRI RATHO, J.

1. This revision has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 01.12.2005 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Nuapada in Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2004 confirming the judgment and order dated 06.02.2004 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Khariar in G.R. Case No.111 of 1997/T.R. No.309 of 1997 convicting the petitioner under S.323 and S.341 of the Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC") and sentencing him to undergo S.I. for six months for the offence under S.323 of IPC and to undergo S.I. for 15 days under S.341 of IPC.

PROSECUTION CASE

2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 02.06.1997 at about 8.00 P.M. while the informant (P.W.1) was coming with a wooden beam (rafter) for constructing his house, the petitioner restrained him and assaulted on his head and back with a lathi causing bleeding injuries on his head and swelling injury on his back. The incident was witnessed by one Dasmu Naik and Ganesh Majhi. The informant lodged FIR and a case was registered and investigation taken up by P.W.5 (I.O.). After completion of investigation, police submitted charge - sheet against the petitioner under Sections - 341, 323, 294 of the IPC.

DEFENCE PLEA

3. The plea of the defence was one of complete denial.

4. WITNESSES

The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined as many as six witnesses. Out of whom P.W.1 - Padma Naik is the informant. P.W.2 - Tularam Harijan is the independent and seizure witness, P.Ws. 3, 4 and 6, namely, Dasmu Naik, Damodhar Bishi and Ganesh Majhi are the independent witnesses. They did not support the prosecution case. P.W.5 - 2 Trilochan Dash is the I.O. in the case.

5. P.W.1 - Padma Naik, the informant has stated in his evidence by corroborating the story of the FIR on the alleged date of occurrence while he was coming with one beam for constructing his house which was fallen in his share, on the way the petitioner obstructed him and assaulted him on his head by a lathi resulting bleeding injury on his head and also dealt a blow on his back causing swelling injury. P.W.2 - Tularam Harijan has supported the evidence of P.W.1 and stated that he had seen that the informant sustained bleeding injury on his head and the shirt was seized by the police in his presence as per Ext.2 which was stained with blood.

The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 had been corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 who have stated that they had seen the bleeding injury on the head of the informant on the alleged date of occurrence and P.W.3 administered water to the informant at the time of occurrence. From their evidence, it is clear that the informant sustained bleeding injury on his head by the petitioner on the alleged date of occurrence.

P.W.5 - Trilochan Dash is the I.O. in the case has also corroborated the evidence of all the witnesses by stating that he seized blood - stained shirt from the informant in presence of witness and also seized a wooden lathi and sent the injured (P.W.1) for medical examination and after getting 3 the report submitted charge - sheet against the accused - petitioner. As per the injury report, P.W.1 sustained injury on right side of vertex 3 ½ x ½ x ½ cm simple in nature could be caused by hard and blunt weapon and a bruise on the left side chest wall 6 x ½ cm caused by hard and blunt weapon.

EXHIBITS

6. The prosecution exhibited three documents while the defence did not have any exhibit. Ext. 1 is the FIR. Ext. 2 is the seizure list and Ext. 3 is the injury requisition.

TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT

7. The learned Court below framed the following points for determination : -

(i) Whether the accused on the alleged date, time and place had wrong