The court established that intention and circumstances are critical in determining the gravity of the offense under IPC sections.

1. This appeal is directed against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13-01-1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpur Nagar, District Raigarh, in Sessions Trial No. 126/1997, by which, the appellant No.1 - Kamta Prasad has been held guilty of commission of offence under S.307 of IPC and ordered to undergo sentence as described below: -
Under S.307 of IPC R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, additional simple imprisonment for 1 month

2. It is said that on the date of incident, during screening of a video film in the village, quarrel took place between Anil, DW - 1, brother of the appellant - Kamta and Looten and Booten, brothers of Ram Sai, PW - 1. It is said that Looten and Booten assaulted Anil with the help of torch, in which, Anil sustained some injury on his head.

3. The prosecution story is that the appellants thereafter, came across Ram Sai, PW - 1 and other witnesses nearby the place of earlier incident and then the appellants assaulted Ram Sai leading to injury on his head and the injured persons were medically examined. There was a linear fracture found on the head of Ram Sai, PW - 1 and another simple head injury. After usual investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant and two other co - accused. During trial, while the appellant was held guilty of commission of offence under S.307 of IPC for causing head injury to Ram Sai, PW - 1, other accused were acquitted by giving them benefit of doubt. This appeal arises out of the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence which has been led by the prosecution as well as defence witnesses proves that there was a prior incident, in which, the brother of the appellant was assaulted and he sustained head injury. The allegation that the appellant had intention to cause death of Ram Sai is not made out, because even according to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the appellant suddenly happened to meet the victim - Ram Sai on road and there dispute arose due to prior incident of appellant's brother having been assaulted by brothers of Ram Sai, PW - 1. Thus, the incident happened all of a sudden, without any premeditation or preparation, therefore, the circumstances of the case do not support the prosecution story that the appellant had any intention to cause death. He submits that there is only one fracture injury on the head and the opinion given by the doctor coupled with the nature of injury does not prove that the injury, in ordinary course of nature, was sufficient to cause death. The next submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that even if it is held that the appellant assaulted Ram Sai resulting in head injury, taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, it being an old incident of the year 1996, the parties having entered into amicable settlement and compromised all their disputes and the appellant being aged 53 years, his conviction may be altered to S.326 of IPC and sentence for the period already undergone by him. It is submitted that the appellant has already undergone 84 days of imprisonment.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the ocular testimony of the injured witness, Ram Sai, PW - 1 is not only corroborated by medical evidence but also from the evidence of other eye - witnesses of the incident, who have clearly stated that the appellant assaulted Ram Sai with the help of rod on his head resulting in two injuries, one of them being fracture injury. The force, with which the assault was made, by itself proves the intention of causing death.

6.