The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of corroborative evidence and the consideration of circumstances and the age of the accused in reaching a decision.

Heard Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State.

2. By means of this petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C, the judgment dated 14.09.2015 delivered in Criminal Appeal No.21(2) of 2014 by the Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur has been called in question. By the said judgment dated 14.09.2015, the appellate court has set aside the judgment and order dated 06.05.2014 delivered in case No.CR 38 of 2012 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Tripura, Udaipur [now Gomati Judicial District].

3. The prosecution was initiated against the petitioner on the basis of a written ejahar filed by the victim-complainant, namely Sri Prabir Saha to the Officer-in-Charge of R.K. Pur Police Station disclosing that when he had gone to the shop of one Dipak Saha, he got engaged in an altercation as highly inflated rate was claimed from him. When the complainant raised the protest, the son of the shopkeeper namely, Jayanta Saha, the petitioner herein, came out with an iron rod in his hand. By the said iron rod, the petitioner assaulted the victim-complainant by repeatedly hitting him. He fell unconscious. The local people transported him to the hospital. He was admitted in the hospital for a day and on the following day i.e. on 26.10.2011, he was released from the hospital.

On the basis of the said written ejahar, R.K. Pur P.S. case No.467 of 2011 under Section 325 of the IPC was registered and taken up for investigation. The police on completion of the investigation filed the final report chargesheeting the petitioner. On taking cognizance, the statement of accusation under Section 323 of the Cr.P.C. was read to the petitioner, to which the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. In order to substantiate the statement of accusation, the prosecution adduced as many as 7(seven) witnesses including the victim-complaint [PW-1],the Investigating Officer, namely Subir Malakar [PW-7] and the Doctor, who examined the victim immediately after he was brought to the hospital, namely Dr. Chandan Mallik [PW-4]. That apart, 4(four) documentary evidence including the written ejahar [Exbt.1] and the injury report [Exbt.2] were introduced in the evidence. From the defence, 6(six) defence witnesses including the petitioner [DW-2] were examined.

After the prosecution evidence was recorded, the petitioner was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. though it had been stated by the petitioner that he would not adduce any evidence but later on, as it is found, he had adduced 6(six) witnesses to probablise his defence.

5. On appreciation of the evidence, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Triopura [now Gomati Judicial District] by the judgment dated 06.05.2014 has observed as under:

“But from the evidence on record of both the parties it is found that there is no dispute that on the alleged day when the informant came to the shop of the father of accused and that time a hot altercation took place on the issue of price of cigarette. But there is no conclusive evidence on record that the present accused on that relevant point of time dealt blow to the informant-cum-victim by iron rod for which he sustained fatal injury to presume him to be guilty for the alleged offence.”

6. Against the said order of acquittal, the complaint [PW-1] preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No.21(2) of 2014 under proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. in the court of the Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur. By the impugned judgment dated 14.09.2015, the judgment and order of acquittal had been interfered with and the appeal was allowed returning the finding of conviction of the petitioner under Section 323 of the IPC. As consequence of the