JUDGMENT S. K. SAHOO, J. - The appellant Dasaratha Dehury @ Tamkadu faced trial in the Court of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda in S.T. Case No.3 of 2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code for wrongfully restraining P.W.1 Dolamani Bagar and assaulting him by means of an axe on 03.10.2006 at about 7.30 p.m. in village Telia under Banaharpali Police Station in the district of Jharsuguda. The appellant was found guilty under Sections 307 as well as 341 of the Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. No separate sentence was awarded for the conviction of the offence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case as per the First Information Report lodged by Ramhari Bagar (P.W.2) on 03.10.2006 before Officer-in-Charge, Banaharpali Police Station is that on that day at about 7.30 a.m. while his cousin brother Dolamani Bagar (P.W.1) was going to attend his work at Thermal riding a bicycle, all on a sudden, due to previous dispute, the appellant who is the neighbour of P.W.1 attacked him by means of a Tangia on his back and head and dealt three to four blows as a result of which P.W.1 sustained bleeding injuries and ran towards Bhagabat Tungi leaving the cycle at the spot to save his life. The appellant chased him holding the Tangia and in front of Bhagabat Tungi, Radhakanta Seth (P.W.4) and Dinabandhu Bagar (P.W.3) snatched away Tangia from the hands of the appellant. P.W.1 fell down becoming unconscious for which he was shifted to Thermal Hospital for treatment. On the report submitted by P.W.2, Hemant Kumar Panda, S.I of Police who was the Officer-in-Charge of Banaharpali Police Station registered Banaharpali P.S. Case No.84 dated 03.10.2006 under Sections 341/307 of the Indian penal Code and took up investigation of the case. During course of investigation, the I.O. visited the spot, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements, seized the weapon of offence i.e. blood stained Tangia, bi-cycle and wearing apparels of the victim and the appellant, sample blood of the victim. During course of investigation, the I.O. visited the spot, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements, seized the weapon of offence i.e. blood stained Tangia, bi-cycle and wearing apparels of the victim and the appellant, sample blood of the victim. He issued injury requisition to the Medical Officer, Ib Thermal Hospital, Banaharpali in favour of the injured Dolamani Bagar (P.W.1). P.W.10 Dr. Manas Ranjan Panigrahi who was the Medical Officer attached to Ib Thermal Hospital, Banaharpali examined the injured (P.W.1) on police requisition and submitted his medical report Ext.5. The I.O. also seized the weapon of offence and produced it before the Medical Officer who, on examining the same opined that the injuries sustained by the injured are possible by the said weapon. The seized weapon of offence, wearing apparels of the victim and accused, collected sample of blood of the victim were sent to R.F.S.L., Ainthapali, Sambalpur for chemical examination and opinion. As prima facie evidence under Sections 341 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code was found against the appellant, he was taken into custody on 07.10.2006 and forwarded to the Court on 08.10.2006 and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted under Sections 341 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code on 30.11.2006. 3. After submission of charge sheet, the case was committed to the Court of Session after following due committal procedure where the learned Trial Court framed the charge under Sections 341 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code on 09.03.2007 against the appellant and since the appellant refuted the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the sessions trial procedure was resorted to prosecute him and establish his guilt. 4. During course of trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses. P.W.1 Dolamani Bagar is the injured. P.W. 2 Ramhari Bagar is an eye witness to the occurrence and he is the informant in the case. P.W.3 Dinabandhu Bagar found injuries on the person of the injured and he also found the appellant holding an axe. He further stated that P.W.4 snatched away the axe from the appellant and thereafter the appellant fled away from the spot. P.W.4 Radhakanta Seth stated that he snatched away the axe from the hands of the appellant and the injured and handed over the said axe to police which was seized under seizure list Ext.2. He further stated that P.W.4 snatched away the axe from the appellant and thereafter the appellant fled away from the spot. P.W.4 Radhakanta Seth stated that he snatched away the axe from the hands of the appellant and the injured and handed over the said axe to police which was seized under seizure list Ext.2. P.W.5 Shoukilal Biswal is a witness to the seizure of one Dhoti and towel of the appellant under seizure list Ext.3. P.W.6 Artatran Biswal is an eye witness to the occurrence. P.W.7 Santosh Kumar Bhoi is a witness to the seizure of axe under seizure list Ext.2. He is also a witness on the seizure of cycle of the injured under seizure list Ext.4 P.W.8 Makardhwaj Kalo is an eye witness to the occurrence. P.W.9 Artatran Bag is a witness to the seizure of blood stained napkin and colour dhoti of the appellant under seizure list Ext.3. P.W.10 Dr. Manas Ranjan Panigrahi was the Medical Officer posted at Ib Thermal Hospital, Banaharpali who examined the injured on 03.10.2006 and proved his report Ext.5 and he also gave opinion regarding possibility of the injuries by the weapon of offence produced before him by the I.O. vide Ext.6. P.W.11 Rabindra Biswal did not support the prosecution case for which he was declared hostile. P.W.12 Gajendra Ghasi is a witness to the seizure of sample blood of the injured collected by the doctor under seizure list Ext.8. Since in spite of repeated summons, the I.O. could not turn up in the case to give evidence, the prosecution declined to examine the Investigating Officer and the defence also filed a memo that it shall not claim any prejudice for non-examination of the Investigating Officer. The prosecution exhibited eight documents. Ext.1 is the First Information Report, Exts. 2, 3 and 4 are the seizure lists, Ext.5 is the medical examination report, Ext.6 is the expert opinion given by P.W.10, Exts.7 and 8 are the signatures of P.W.11 and P.W.12 respectively on two seizure lists. 5. The defence plea of the appellant was one of denial. Neither any witness was examined nor any document was proved on behalf of the defence. 6. Miss Soma Patnaik, learned counsel was engaged as amicus curiae on behalf of the appellant and she was supplied with the paper book. 5. The defence plea of the appellant was one of denial. Neither any witness was examined nor any document was proved on behalf of the defence. 6. Miss Soma Patnaik, learned counsel was engaged as amicus curiae on behalf of the appellant and she was supplied with the paper book. After going through the paper book, she placed the evidence of the witnesses as well as the impugned judgment and contended that the ingredients of the offences under Sections 341 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code are not attracted and there are material contradictions in the evidence of the injured which could not be proved due to non-examination of the Investigating Officer. She further contended that the version of the eye witnesses about the assault on the injured are discrepant in nature and therefore the appellant should be given benefit of doubt. Mr. Dillip Kumar Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand while supporting the impugned judgment and order of conviction submitted that the evidence of injured is clear, cogent, trustworthy and his evidence gets corroboration from the medical evidence. He further contended that the manner in which the appellant assaulted the injured repeatedly by means of sharp cutting weapon and that to on the vital parts of the body like neck and head, clearly makes out the ingredients of offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code. He further contended that the evidence of the injured also gets sufficient corroboration from the other eye witnesses. The learned counsel for the State further contended that since the defence has filed a memo before the learned trial Court that the defence will not claim any prejudice for the non-examination of the Investigating Officer, such a contention cannot be raised at the appellate stage and there are also no such material contradiction which would otherwise discredit the evidence of the injured in any manner. 7. 7. Adverting the contentions raised by the learned counsels of the respective parties and coming to the evidence of the injured (P.W.1), who is the star witness of the prosecution, I find that he has stated that on the date of occurrence while he was going to Ib Thermal riding his Hero Cycle, the appellant came from behind and gave an axe blow on his back and when he fell down from the cycle and saw the appellant assaulting him, he ran away towards Bhagabat Tungi. The appellant chased him holding axe and assaulted him on his back below the middle of the shoulder and then on his left shoulder and when fell down near Bhagabat Tungi, the appellant further assaulted him on the left side of his head. When the appellant tried to give another blow aiming at his neck, he tried to ward off, for which he sustained injury on the left arm. He further stated that he caught hold of the Tangia and tried to snatch it and while both of them were trying to snatch the Tangia, the tangia struck below his left shoulder causing bleeding injury and he shouted for help and at that time P.W.3 and P.W.4 came to the spot and intervened and the Tangia was taken away by P.W.4. The defence confronted the previous statement of the P.W.1 made before police to him that he had not stated before the Investigating Officer that near the Bhagabat Tungi, the appellant gave an axe blow aiming at his neck and when he warded off the blow, it struck at his left arm and when he himself and the appellant were trying to snatch the axe, it struck on his left shoulder. Since the Investigating Officer was not examined, in the interest of justice, I verified the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the injured (P.W.1) to see whether there was at all any such contradictions or not as confronted to P.W.1. I found that in fact P.W.1 had stated before police that when the appellant aimed to give an axe blow to him, he raised his left hand as a result of which it struck on his left hand. Of course, P.W.1 has not stated that while he and the appellant were trying to snatch the axe, it struck on his left shoulder. Of course, P.W.1 has not stated that while he and the appellant were trying to snatch the axe, it struck on his left shoulder. In my humble view, the contradictions which have been elicited in the cross-examination are not very material and it does not affect the credibility of P.W.1 in any manner. Coming to the evidence of other eye witnesses, it is found that P.W.2 has also stated that while the injured was going away from his house to attend his work, the appellant coming from his behind, dealt blows by means of Tangia for which the injured fell down at the spot sustaining bleeding injuries and when the injured was going away from the spot, the appellant chased him and further assaulted on the head by means of the axe, for which the injured sustained bleeding injuries on his head and shoulder and in course of the assault the victim caught hold of the axe. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examiantion of P.W.2 to disbelieve his testimony. The other eye witnesses are P.W.6 and P.W.8. P.W.6 has stated that he saw the appellant assaulting the injured by means of axe on his head and neck and the injured sustained bleeding injuries. P.W.8 has stated that he saw the appellant was chasing the injured holding an axe and dealt blows for which the injured sustained bleeding injuries. No doubt the witnesses P.W.6 and P.W.8 have not stated about the entire assault on the injured but they had arrived at the spot at different point of time and they were not present from the beginning till the end of the assault and therefore merely because they have stated about a part of the assault, their evidence cannot be disbelieved nor their evidence can be said to be contradictory to the evidence to the injured. Coming to the evidence of the doctor P.W.10 who examined the injured on 03.10.2006 at Ib Thermal Hospital, Banaharpali, he noticed six injuries which are as follows:- (i) Sharp cut bleeding of size 2 ½” x 2 ½” x 1/8” on his left side back 4 ½” below scapula. (ii) Sharp cut bleeding 2 ½” x 1” x 1/8” behind left shoulder joint. (iii) Sharp cut bleeding 2 ½” x 1” x 1/8” on the back near left side neck. (iv) Sharp cut bleeding 1” x 1/8” x 1/8” anterior to left shoulder joint. (ii) Sharp cut bleeding 2 ½” x 1” x 1/8” behind left shoulder joint. (iii) Sharp cut bleeding 2 ½” x 1” x 1/8” on the back near left side neck. (iv) Sharp cut bleeding 1” x 1/8” x 1/8” anterior to left shoulder joint. (v) Sharp cut bleeding ¾” x 1/8” x 1/8” on the left forearm near wrist. (vi) Laceration bleeding ½” x 1/8” x 1/8” over scalp, left parietal region. The doctor has stated that all the injuries except injury no.1 which is on the scapula on the left side was grievous in nature. The doctor has further stated that all the injuries were caused by hard and sharp cutting weapon. He has proved his report Ext.5. He has further stated that the patient was serious and bleeding heavily for which he was referred to V.S.S. Medical College and Hospital, Burla for specialist care after giving necessary first aid. The injured has not stated that at any point of time he was treated at V.S.S. Medical College and Hospital, Burla. No documentary evidence to that effect has also been proved in the case. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that the injured was at any point of time treated at V.S.S. Medical College and Hospital, Burla. The doctor however stated that he examined the weapon of offence which was seized by the police which is an axe with wooden handle on 02.11.2006 and after examining the weapon of offence, he gave his opinion that all the injuries found on the person of the injured was possible by that axe and he proved his report as Ext.6. Thus the ocular testimonies of the injured and the other eye witnesses get corroboration from the medical evidence. The evidence of P.W.1 that the weapon of offence was snatched away by P.W.3 and P.W.4 is also getting corroboration from the evidence of P.W.4 who has stated that he snatched away the axe and when police came to the village, he handed over the axe to the Police which was seized under seizure list Ext.2. P.W.3 has also stated that P.W.4 snatched away the axe from the appellant and thereafter the appellant fled away from the spot. Thus there are sufficient materials on record to corroborate the evidence of the injured P.W.1. 8. P.W.3 has also stated that P.W.4 snatched away the axe from the appellant and thereafter the appellant fled away from the spot. Thus there are sufficient materials on record to corroborate the evidence of the injured P.W.1. 8. Now coming to the evidence on record regarding the commission of the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, law is well settled that in order to attract the ingredients of such offence, not only the nature of the weapon used but also the manner in which the assault was made, the injuries that have been caused, the parts of the body on which the injuries were inflicted and also the conduct of the accused at the time of occurrence and after the occurrence are all relevant factors. Even if grievous injury is not caused on the vital part of the body of injured but that may also attract the ingredients of the offence in case it is proved that the act was done with an intention or knowledge that by such act, the accused might cause the death of the injured. Therefore, the intention of or knowledge relating to the commission of murder and doing of an act towards achieving that object are the ingredients of offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. In the present case, it appears that when the injured was going on his bicycle, the appellant first came and dealt a blow by means of a Tangia on his back from his backside which hit on the left shoulder. As per the Medical Report, corresponding injuries are there. Thereafter the injured in order to save his life tried to escape from the spot but the appellant chased him and assaulted him on different parts of the body with the Tangia and ultimately when the injured caught hold of the Tangia, there was some push and pull between the two and at that point of time, P.W.4 came to the rescue of P.W.1 and snatched away the Tangia from the hands of the appellant as a result of which perhaps P.W.1 could not be assaulted further. Looking at the nature of the injuries sustained by the injured on his neck and head as well as other parts of the body, I am of the view that the ingredients of offence under Section 307 IPC is clearly established. Looking at the nature of the injuries sustained by the injured on his neck and head as well as other parts of the body, I am of the view that the ingredients of offence under Section 307 IPC is clearly established. So far as the offence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it prescribes punishment for wrongful restraint. ‘Wrongful restraint’ has been defined under Section 339 of the Indian Penal Code which states that if somebody voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, he can be said to have wrongfully restrained that person. In the present case, P.W.1 was going to Ib Thermal on his bicycle and the appellant came from his behind and assaulted for which P.W.1 fell down from the cycle. Due to such assault, the injured could not proceed towards his destination and therefore it can be said that the appellant caused voluntary obstruction to the injured to proceed towards Ib Thermal and thus I am of the view that the ingredients of the offence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code are also attracted in this case. In view of what has been discussed above, I am of the view that the impugned judgment and order of conviction of the appellant under Sections 341 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code suffers from no infirmity. 9. On going through the record, it is found that the appellant was taken into custody on 08.10.2006 and he was throughout in custody not only during the trial but also during pendency of the appeal before this Court and therefore he has already undergone the sentences which was not only the substantive sentence but also the default sentence imposed on him and therefore he should be immediately released from custody forthwith, if not already been released provided his detention is not otherwise required in any other case. Before parting with the case, I would like to put on record my appreciation to Miss Soma Patnaik, the learned Amicus Curiae for rendering valuable help and assistance towards arriving at the decision above mentioned. The learned Amicus Curiae shall be entitled to her professional fees which is fixed at Rs.2,500/-. Before parting with the case, I would like to put on record my appreciation to Miss Soma Patnaik, the learned Amicus Curiae for rendering valuable help and assistance towards arriving at the decision above mentioned. The learned Amicus Curiae shall be entitled to her professional fees which is fixed at Rs.2,500/-. The Lower Court Records with a copy of this judgment be sent down to the learned trial Court forthwith for information and necessary action. The JCRLA stands dismissed. JCRLA dismissed.