JUDGMENT : V. Gopalswamy, J. - This appeal is preferred by the State of Orissa against the judgment of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Cuttack acquitting the accused (the present Respondent) of the charge u/s 307, I.P.C. 2. The prosecution case, briefly stated is as follows: On 6-10-1982 at about 10 p. m. in the night, as P.W. 3 Chanda, after closing his saloon, was returning home on the road by the side of the Bhima Ice Factory, the accused, after taking liquor in Mom Kanungo's liquor shop came out by holding a Bhujali and attacked him (P.W. 3) in front of the tea-stall of one Baiya and gave him three to four Bhujali blows over his stomach, thigh and other parts his body declaring that he would kill him (P.W. 3) as he (P.W. 3) had lodged a report against him at the police station. In spite of the cries of (P.W. 3) none came to his report and somehow he managed to escape from the attack of the accused and cathing up a rickshaw he went to the hospital. Thereafter on receiving information over phone about the assault on P.W. 3, as the sub-Inspector of Manglabag P.S. (P.W. 7) went to the S.C.B. Medical College. Hospital, when P.W. 3 orally reported to him about the occurrence which was reduced into writing and treated as the F.I.R. (Ext. 3) in the case. After due investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused u/s 307, I.P.C. 3. The plea of the accused was one of denial and no witness was examined on his behalf. 4. The prosecution has examined in all seven witnesses to prove its case. P.W. 3 Chanda alias Hadibandhu Barik is the injured person and he is also the informant in the case P.Ws. 1 and 6 claim to have seen the occurrence. P.W. 2 was also examined as an eye-witness, but he turned hostile to the prosecution. P.W. 4 is a police constable who claims to have been on patrol duty at the relevant time near the place of occurrence. P.W. 5 is the doctor of the Casualty Ward, who examined P.W. 3 regarding the injuries. P.W. 7 is the Investigating Officer in the case. 5. As P.W. 3 is the most material witness in the case his evidence is considered at the outset. P.W. 5 is the doctor of the Casualty Ward, who examined P.W. 3 regarding the injuries. P.W. 7 is the Investigating Officer in the case. 5. As P.W. 3 is the most material witness in the case his evidence is considered at the outset. The evidence of P.W. 3 shows that on 6-10-1982 at about 10 p. m. in the night, after closing his saloon situated near the Bhima Ice Factory, as he was going home on the way near the tea-stall of Baiya accused appeared before him and questioning him as to why he (P.W. 3) had reported against him at the police station, inflicted knife blows over his stomach, over his both thighs, on his back and on other parts of his body including his forehead and fled away towards Patra Sahi from the spot and that as a result of such assault on him, he (P.W. 3) sustained bleeding injuries. It is in the evidence of P.W. 3 that while assaulting him, as the accused was shouting that whoever comes to the spot would be assaulted, no one came to his rescue. P.W. 3 stated that P.W. 6 had accompanied him to the hospital. P.W. 3 deposed that at the hospital, as the police arrived he orally reported to the police about the occurrence and the same was reduced to writing and he gave his thumb impression thereunder. His evidence in cross-examination shows that he was some what confused regarding the sequence in which the blows were given on the different parts of has body. The occurrence was on 6-10-1982 and P.W. 3 deposed on 25-8-1983 and he was cross-examined at length and so, if in course of such cross examination he was not able to readily recollect the minor details about the assault an him on that score alone his testimony on the major aspect of the case cannot be discarded, if it is otherwise found to be reliable. Nothing substantial was elicited in the cross-examination of P.W. 3 took discredit his testimony that on the relevant night as he was returning home the accused had assaulted him with a knife over his stomach, on his thighs and on the other parts of his body including on his forehead and on his back causing bleeding injuries on his person. 6. 6. It is in the evidence of P.W. 3 that after assaulting him with a knife, the accused went away towards Patra Sahi and thereafter as one Bichi Lenka had arranged a rickshaw for him, he went in that rickshaw and got himself admitted in the hospital on that very night. The evidence of the doctor Dr. G.C. Rath (P.W. 5) shows that on 6-10-1982 he examined P.W. 3 Chanda Barik at 11.30 p. m. and found the following injuries: (1) One stab wound near the left lumber region. (2) One stab wound just below the right illac creast. (3) Stab wound on the right thigh. (4) One stab wound on the posterior aspect of left thigh. (5) Incised wound on the left side of the forehead. He opined that all the above injuries were simple in nature and might have been caused by a sharp cutting weapon and the age of the injuries was within 24 hours P.W. 5 proves the injury report, Ext. 2 regarding the injuries found by him on the accused. It is in the evidence of P.W. 5 that at the time of his examination of P.W. 3. he was admitted in the Emergency Ward. There is nothing in the evidence of P.W. 5 which creates any doubt regarding the truth of his above evidence. So the evidence of P.W. 5 lands corroboration to the evidence of P.W. 3 that he was assaulted by the accused at about 10 p. m. in the night by means of a knife and after sustaining multiple injuries he went in a rickshaw to the hospital. 7. P.W. 7 is the Investigating Officer in the case, who was attached to Manglabag Police Station 6-1-1982. His evidence shows that on the night of 6-10-1982 at about 11.30 p. m. be received a telephonic message from the Casualty Medical Officer, S.C.B. Medical College hospital, Cuttack, about the admission of P.W. 3 Chanda in the hospital and so he immediately proceeded to the hospital. P.W. 7 deposed that as P.W. 3 orally reported to him about the occurrence the same was reduced into writing in his presence by one Pitambar Naik and the same was treated as the F.I.R. in the case. The F.I.R. was marked as Ext. 3 on being duly proved by P.W. 7. From the evidence of P.W. 7 and the recitals in Ext. The F.I.R. was marked as Ext. 3 on being duly proved by P.W. 7. From the evidence of P.W. 7 and the recitals in Ext. 3 it is seen that, P.W. 3 had promptly lodged the F.I.R. alleging that he was severely assaulted by the accused by means of a Bhujali. The evidence of the Investigating Officer (P.W. 7) shows that after seeing the injuries on the person of P.W. 3 he had issued the requisition Ext. 2/2 to the Medical Officer for examination of P.W. 3. The said evidence of the Investigating Officer is corroborated by the recitals in Ext. 2/2 wherein it was mentioned that the accused sustained multiple injuries. So the above evidence of the Investigating Officer also lends corroboration to the version of P.W. 3 that on the relevant nigh the sustained multiple injuries at the hands of the accused. 8. The evidence of the doctor P.W. 5 shows that soon after P.W. 3 was admitted in the hospital, he (P.W. 5) noted the injuries found by him on the bed-head ticket and that after receiving the police requisition the injuries mentioned in the bed-head ticket were copied out by him in the injury report. The learned Counsel for the Respondent contended that as the bed-head ticket itself was not produced and proved by the prosecution no reliance should have been placed on the injury report Ext. 2. Even if the said contention is accepted, the evidence of P.W. 5 can be safely relied on to the limited extent that on the relevant night P.W. 3 was admitted in the hospital with multiple injuries on his person. 9. On a careful consideration of the prosecution evidence it is seen that the evidence of P.W. 3 that on the relevant night he sustained/multiple cut injuries on his person at the hands of the accused is corroborated by other reliable evidence as well. In any event the evidence of P.W. 3 that the accused bad dealt a blow with a knife over his stomach has not been shaken in cross examination in any manner. There is nothing in the evidence of P.W. 6 to disbelieve him when he stated that soon after the occurrence when he rushed to the spot he found a bleeding injury over the stomach of P.W. 3. There is nothing in the evidence of P.W. 6 to disbelieve him when he stated that soon after the occurrence when he rushed to the spot he found a bleeding injury over the stomach of P.W. 3. The defence made a suggestion to P.W. 3 that he got his stomach operated as he was suffering from a disease and the said suggestion, which was denied by him reveals that the defence made a false suggestion to explain the injury sustained by P.W. 3 on his stomach during the course of the occurrence. The further defence suggestion to P.W. 3 that on the relevant night he was moving in a drunken state carrying a knife and as he fell down due to drunkenness the knife entered into his person causing a bleeding injury was also denied by P.W. 3. The said suggestion reveals that even according to the defence on the relevant right P.W. 3 had sustained a bleeding injury due to a knife and the same is highly significant. 10. Though the prosecution has no been able to prove satisfactorily the charge against the accused u/s 307, I.P.C. yet it could successfully establish that the accused by means of a sharp cutting weapon had voluntary caused hurt to P.W. 3 on the relevant night and thereby rendered himself liable u/s 324, I.P.C. Hence the accused is acquitted of the charge u/s 307, I.P.C. However he is liable to be convicted u/s 324, I.P.C. and to that extent the appeal preferred by the State is bound to succeed. For the offence u/s 324, I.P.C. considering the facts and circumstances of the case I think sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years would sufficiently meet the ends of justice. 11. Before concluding the judgment I think it is proper that I should refer to that manner of recording of the deposition of the material witness P.W. 1 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge. P.W. 1 was examined as and eye-witness to the occcurrance. On 24-8-19833 he deposed giving a vived description of the assault on P.W. 3 by the accused. P.W. 1 was further cross-examined on 25-8-1983 and from the tenor of his evidence on that day it appears that he was inclined to favour the accused on that day. P.W. 1 was examined as and eye-witness to the occcurrance. On 24-8-19833 he deposed giving a vived description of the assault on P.W. 3 by the accused. P.W. 1 was further cross-examined on 25-8-1983 and from the tenor of his evidence on that day it appears that he was inclined to favour the accused on that day. From the deposition of P.W. 1 it is seen that while the defence was cross- examining him at length, the Court had put a question to P.W. 1 and elicited the reply from him: I had not seen the accused or any person giving blows on the person of Chanda (P.W. 3). Of ocurse, it is not known as to what was the question put by the Court, but whatever is the question put, it is difficult to understand as to what was the justification for putting such a question to elicit the answer quoted above. The again it is not clear as to how the Court was satisfied with the answer in view of the positive evidence of P.W. 1 in chief-examination that he was an eye-witness to the occurrence and more so when P.W. 3 concluded his deposition by rejecting the defence suggestion that he was not an eye-witness, 'by asserting that it is not a fact that he had not seen the occurrence and that there was no such occurrence as alleged. Likewise when on 26-8-1983 the defence was cross-examining P.W. 1 about the seizure list Ext. 1 in great detail eliciting answers in favour of the accused, it is not clear as to where was the need for the Court to put a question in the midst of such cross-examination to elicit the answer from him: To help the police and at the instance of the police officer I had signed over Ext. 1 without fully going through the contents of Ext. 1. 12. Section 165 of the Evidence Act gives a very wide power in the Judge to ask a witness any question in any form at any stage of the proceedings. It is recognised that this privilege should be used with caution. There should be no undue interference with the rights of the parties. The privilege should not be exercised to the detriment of either party. (See In Re: G. Vasantha Pai, ). It is recognised that this privilege should be used with caution. There should be no undue interference with the rights of the parties. The privilege should not be exercised to the detriment of either party. (See In Re: G. Vasantha Pai, ). The practice of Judges and Magistrates questioning witnesses as if they are cross-examining them is to be deprecated. If the Judge puts too many questions to the witness during the course of either the examination in-chief or the cross-examination the counsel is bound to feel the embarrassment and trouble as this would take him away from the trend of his question. (See In re Sibasubbu Nadar AIR 1951 Mad 771 (1)). A Judge's right to put questions to witnesses is expressly recognised by Section 165, Evidence Act. He is expected and indeed it is his duty, to explore all avenues open to him in order to discover the truth and to that end, question witnesses on points which the lawyers for the parties have either overlooked or left obscure or wilfully avoided. If therefore the Judge finds, that the examination of a witness is not being conducted in such a way as to unfold the truth, it is not only his right but his duty to intervene with his own questions. (See Sunil Chandra Roy and Another Vs. The State, ). It is not within the province of the Court to examine the witnesses unless the lawyers on either side have omitted to put some material question or questions and the Court should, as a general rule, leave the witnesses to the lawyers to be dealt with as laid down in Section 138 of the Evidence Act. Judge's power to put questions u/s 165 is not certainly intended to be used in the manner which had occasion to notice in the present case. 13. In the result, on a consideration of the entire material on record, as discussed earlier, I find the accused-Respondent guilty of the offence u/s 324, I.P.C. and therefore, convict him and sentence him thereunder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. Accordingly the appeal is partly allowed. Appeal partly allowed. Final Result : Allowed