The court emphasized that to establish grievous hurt under the IPC, intent or knowledge of causing such harm must be proven; otherwise, a conviction can be modified to lesser charges.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. Mishra, J.

The present Criminal Appeal, filed by the appellant under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.07.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar-Aska in Sessions Case No.58 of 1999 (SC No.16/99 ADJ-I), whereby the learned trial Court while acquitting the appellant for the offences under Sections 294 /452/324/304 of I.P.C., convicted him for the offence under Sections 323 /325 of I.P.C. and on that count, he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for one month for the offence under Section 325 of I.P.C., and also sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence under Section 323 of I.P.C.

2. The present appeal has been pending since 2000. When the matter was called for hearing, consistently none appeared for the appellant. Therefore, this Court requested Mr. Sasanka Sekhar Das, learned counsel, who was present in Court to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae. He has readily accepted the same and after obtaining entire record, assisted the Court very effectively. This Court records appreciation for the meaningful assistance rendered by Mr. Sasanka Sekhar Das, learned counsel.

3. Heard Mr. Sasanka Sekhar Das, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. Ashok Kumar Apat, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the accused is the son of the brother of the deceased, Sada Naik, and was residing as his front- door neighbour. On 28.02.1998 at about 10.00 P.M., while a quarrel was taking place between the deceased Sada Naik and his son, Gandhia Naik, the accused allegedly intervened in the said quarrel and assaulted the deceased by means of a yoke (Juali), dealing a blow on his right thigh. As a result of such assault, the bone of the right thigh was fractured. It is further alleged that the accused abused Sairendri Naik, the daughter-in-law of the deceased, in obscene language and also assaulted her and her husband, Prakas Naik. The injured Sada Naik was immediately taken to Jagannathprasad Hospital for treatment. As his condition deteriorated, Sairendri Naik lodged the First Information Report at Buguda Police Station. Subsequently, since adequate treatment could not be provided at Jagannathprasad P.H.C., the deceased was shifted to the house of his daughter at Jagannathprasad. Despite treatment, he succumbed to his injuries on 31.03.1998 at his daughter’s residence. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the accused has been charged for the offences under Sections 294 /452/324/323/304 of I.P.C.

5. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined ten witnesses. P.W.3 is the informant; P.W.5 is her husband; P.W.6 is the daughter of the deceased in whose house the deceased expired; P.W.1 was an independent eye witness; P.W.2 was a seizure witness; P.W.4 expressed his ignorance about the incident; P.W.8 was the A.S.I. who made inquest over the dead body in the house of the daughter of the deceased at Jagannathprasad; P.W.7 was the doctor, who treated deceased Sada Naik at Jagannathprasad Hospital; P.W.9 was the Investigating Officer; and P.W.10 was another I.O., who has only submitted the charge-sheet. The post-mortem report was admitted into evidence on the consent of the defence.

6. The learned trial Court, after analyzing the entire evidence brought on record by the prosecution, found the appellant guilty of offence under Section 323 /325 of I.P.C. and accordingly sentenced him. The learned trial Court was of t