CUTTACK, India, April 18 -- Orissa High Court issued the following order on March 17:

1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.08.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bhawanipatna, Kalahandi in Sessions Case No. 86/67 of 2008 [arising out of G.R. Case No. 184 of 2008 (TR No. 1455 of 2008)], whereby the learned trial court convicted the appellant under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for six months.

2. This appeal is pending since 2009 and none appeared for the appellant on several dates of hearing. Therefore, vide order dated 12.03.2026, this Court requested Mr. Devi Batsalya Rath, who was present in Court to assist the Court in the capacity of Amicus Curiae and he has readily accepted the same and after obtaining the entire record, assisted the Court very effectively.

3. Heard Mr. Devi Batsalya Rath, 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 on 09.04.2008 at about 9.30 P.M. while the injured Bhismarathi Bag was watching T.V. at Lucky Hotel in front of his house, the accused came there and stabbed a knife to his belly. Fortunately while the accused was stabbing, the injured could catch hold of the hands of the accused for which he did not sustain deep cut injury on his belly. The injured then snatched away the knife from the hands of the accused. Thereafter, the accused fled away from the spot. It is further alleged that earlier to this incident the brother of the accused had also assaulted him and the matter was amicably settled between them.

5. On the basis of the written report of the informant, police registered the case and investigation was conducted and charge sheet has been filed in the present case against the accused for the alleged commission of offence u/s.307 of I.P.C. The accused took a stance of complete denial and claim trial. Accordingly, he was put to trial on the charge, as mentioned above.

6. The prosecution in order to bring home the charges examined as many as nine witnesses and exhibited nine documents. Out of nine witnesses, P.W.1 is the brother of the injured and also an eye witness to the incident; P.W.2 was the owner of the hotel where the incident took place and also an eye witness; P.W.6 was one of the post occurrence witness; P.W.3 was the seizure witness; P.W.4 was the medical officer; P.W.7 was also another medical officer, who had admitted the injured; and P.Ws.8 and 9 were the I.Os. of the present case.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=%2FbY2dBB1fxliePvWrCseo2jrKO3X5PZkT5XD5GQhhY4xV0iByVNcRyR%2BPiMzjfON&caseno=CRLA/359/2009&cCode=1&cino=ODHC010372172009&state_code=11&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.