Devilal Vs. Kantabai

- indian penal code, 1890.sections 307 & 324: [lokeshwar singh panta & b.sudershan reddy,jj] assault proof - appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - no evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - however opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury held, appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under section 324 of i.p.c., sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him - i fail to understand as to how and in what manner the two dates have caused or give some rise of confusion.ordera.m. sapre, j.1. heard on la. no. 1171/2000.2. this is an application made by appellant under section 5 of limitation act seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal.3. appellant is defendant in a suit filed by the respondent. the suit was for claiming maintenance by the wife against husband (appellant herein). this was decreed by the impugned judgment and decree. the learned trial court fixed a monthly sum of rs. 400/- to be paid to plaintiff by the appellant. it is against this judgment and decree that the appellant has felt aggrieved and filed this appeal.4. according to appellant the appeal is delayed by 61 days. the ground for condonation of delay as mentioned in the application is that the judgment was delivered on 30.10.1999 whereas the decree was drawn on 2.11.1999. this according to appellant has caused confusion leading in delay. the other ground is of his ailment.5. having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and examined the record of the case, i find that both the grounds urged by the appellant have no substance whatsoever. so far as the ground relating to date of judgment and decree is concerned, in my opinion, it does not constitute any cause at all much less sufficient one. i fail to understand as to how and in what manner the two dates have caused or give some rise of confusion. the judgment was delivered on 30.10.1999 whereas decree was signed on 2.11.1999. indeed perusal of original record shows that even the decree was drawn on the same day (30.10.1999) and the same was brought to the notice of both counsel appearing for the parties, who got the same noted by their signatures. under these circumstances to say that it caused delay in filing appeal and that too of 61 days has no basis at all. coming to the second ground of ailment of appellant, the certificate of doctor filed in support is totally false one. it is apparent by only reading it. it does not mention as to by which ailment, the appellant was down then of what period. the.....