The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of proving actus reus and mens rea for criminal liability, and the lack of evidence establishing both elements in the appellant's case.

MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, J.

1. The Appellant, vide Judgment and Order on Sentence, both dated 24-12-2015 of the Learned Court of Sessions Judge, North Sikkim at Mangan, in S.T. Case No. 02 of 2015, was convicted of the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only, with a default stipulation. The Appellant assails both by filing the instant Appeal.

2. The Prosecution case before the Learned Trial Court was that, on 23-06-2014 at around 3 a.m., the Appellant accompanied by three other accused persons, went to the house of P.W.5, wherein at the relevant time P.W.2 was residing with her mother P.W.5 and her sisters P.Ws.7 and 8. Shouting from the outside of the house, the Appellant demanded that the door be opened and on his banging and insistence, the victim, P.W.8 opened the door, on which, the Appellant assaulted her, on her hand with a ‘khukhuri’ M.O.I. The FIR, Exhibit 4, was lodged by P.W.5 on 23-06-2014 at around 0530 hours. Mangan P.S. Case bearing FIR No. 26(06) 14 dated 23-06-2014 under Sections 458/307/354/34 of the IPC was registered against the Appellant and under Sections 458/34 of the IPC against his accomplices being Passang Tamang, Dawa Tamang and Bijay Rai. Investigation was endorsed to P.W.13 S.I. Narendra Kr. Pradhan.

3. Investigation revealed that in March, 2014, P.W.2 the wife of the Appellant, was living with her mother P.W.5 due to some animosity with the Appellant, which had been brought to the notice of Mangan Police Station on 20-05-2014. Two days after the said Complaint, the Appellant went to the house of P.W.5 where P.W.2 was residing and a scuffle ensued between the Appellant and P.W.5 on which P.W.5 slapped the Appellant. This matter was also brought to the notice of Phidang Out Post where P.W.5 had sent one of her daughters namely, Usha Thapa to lodge a Complaint. The Police finding it to be a family dispute advised them to resolve it amongst themselves. On 22-06-2014, on account of a wedding in the house of the Appellant's neighbour, he along with his accomplices attended the same and returned home with them. Around 1 a.m., Dawa Tamang one of the accused asked the Appellant to reach him home. The Appellant and all the other accused persons got into a private Alto Vehicle of the Appellant and en route parked the vehicle above the house of P.W.5. All four proceeded to the house of P.W.5, where Dawa Tamang first called out to P.W.2, followed by the Appellant. When finally the door was opened by P.W.7, it is alleged that the Appellant attempted to assault her with a ‘khukhuri’ but were restrained by Dawa Tamang. Following this, P.W.8, the victim came to the door, at which time the Appellant assaulted her with his ‘khukhuri’ causing severe injury on her left hand. On completion of investigation, Charge-Sheet was submitted against the Appellant and his accomplices, Passang Tamang, Dawa Tamang and Bijay Rai, under the Sections of Law as detailed hereinabove.

4. The Learned Trial Court after hearing the submissions on Charge found prima facie sufficient materials to frame Charge against the Appellant under Section 458/326/307 of the IPC. On the plea of “not guilty” by the Appellant, the Prosecution evidence comprising of thirteen witnesses commenced. Although it would be pertinent to point out that the Charge was framed against Passang Tamang, Bijay Rai and Dawa Tamang also under various provisions of the IPC, the same are not relevant for the present purposes. On consideration of the Prosecution evidence, the Learned Trial Court convicted the Appellant as detailed hereinabove, but opined that the Prosecution could not establish the offence under Sections 307 and 458 of the IPC against him.

5. The arguments raised in Appeal before this Court were that the Learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the case did not fall under Section 326 of the IPC, as