The conviction under IPC sections must be supported by adequate evidence; otherwise, charges may be set aside.

ORDER

Date : 23-06-2020 Heard Mr. N.N. Upadhaya, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon in Sessions Case No. 52/2011. By the said judgment, the appellants were convicted u/s 341/324/326 IPC and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year u/s 324 , simple imprisonment for two months u/s 326 and simple imprisonment for one year u/s 341 . The appellants were further sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each u/s 326 with default stipulation.

3. Prosecution case in a nutshell was that on 14/05/2011 the appellants wrongfully restrained Boloram Bordoloi and assaulted him causing grievous injuries by means of dagger, stick etc. Having come to know about the occurrence, the younger brother of the injured came to the place of occurrence, shifted the injured to hospital and lodged an FIR. On the basis of the said FIR, police registered Buragaon P.S. Case No. 20/2011 u/s 341/325/326/307/34 IPC and on conclusion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the appellants u/s 341/325/326/307/34 .

4. In course of trial, learned trial court framed charges u/s 341/324/326/307/34 IPC , to which the appellants pleaded not guilty. Six witness were examined by the prosecution in order to bring home the charges and on appreciation of evidence, learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants u/s 326/324/341 and awarded sentence as indicated above.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants Mr. N.N. Upadhaya has not contested the finding of the learned trial court that the appellants inflicted injuries to the victim. However, learned counsel Mr. Upadhaya submits that no evidence was brought on record to establish any charge u/s 326 IPC and at best a charge u/s 324 can be said to have been proved. Mr. Upadhaya further contends that there was also no material to establish the charge u/s 341 .

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. D.Das fairly conceded that the evidence to establish the charge u/s 326 was inadequate. However, the materials brought on record clearly establish the charge u/s 324 IPC beyond doubt.

7. Considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. The injured Boloram Bordoloi was examined as PW-5. He testified that on the date of occurrence at about 6 pm, while he was coming home from the market, three persons including the appellants assaulted him by means of stick, dagger etc and consequently, he sustained multiple injuries. Having received the injuries, he ran towards his house and fell down on the courtyard of one Boloram Konwar. The appellants also followed him and mounted further assault on him.

9. PW-2, Tulen Bordoloi, who was also an eye witness to the occurrence, deposed that he accompanied the injured at the time of occurrence and had seen the appellants assaulting the victim with stick and dagger. He also deposed that he informed the brother of the injured about the occurrence.

10. The doctor, who attended the injured, has been examined as PW-4. The PW-4 stated that on examination of the injured, he found the following injuries : “(i) 6-7 cm long injury closely associated with sharp cutting wound in left fronto parietal scalp with profuse bleeding.

(ii) About 8-10 cm long full thickness deep sharp margin cutting wound in the mid-portion of both parietal scalp with bleeding.

(iii) Dorsal side of right had about 10 cm long sharp cutti