Back
ORISSA HIGH COURT
Sibo Sankar Mishra, J.
Mir Chuna @ Mir Safik – Appellant
versus
State of Orissa – Respondent
CRA No.218 of 1995
Decided on 16.4.2026
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant: Mr. Bijay Kumar Ragada, along with Ms. Chetana Prakash, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent: Mr. Auroninda Mohanty, Additional Standing Counsel
IMPORTANT POINT
Attempt to murder – To balance scale of Justice fine imposed on appellant can be enhanced and paid to victim as compensation.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 307 – Attempt to murder – Conviction and sentence – Although there are contradictions apparent on record, but those contradictions are not material to ignore evidence of victim and other circumstantial evidences – Victim has sustained injuries at hands of accused – Post-occurrence witnesses have lent support to evidence of victim besides evidence of supporting narrative of incident – Conviction maintained but sentence imposed by trial Court to appellant under Section 307 of IPC, modified to that of period appellant has already undergone – However, to balance scale of Justice fine of Rs.1,000/- imposed on appellant enhanced to Rs.20,000/- – Fine amount to be deposited shall be disbursed to victim in accordance with Section 357 of Cr.P.C. as compensation. (Paras 17, 21 and 22)
Result: Criminal Appeal partly allowed.
JUDGMENT
S.S. Mishra, J.—The sole appellant has assailed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.08.1995 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kendrapara in S.T. No.15/276 of 1994, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand), in default, to undergo further R.I. for six months more.
2. The present appeal has been pending since 1995. Continuously none appeared for the appellant, when the matter was taken up for hearing. Therefore, initially vide order dated 26.09.2023, Mr. Satya Narayan Mishra, Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court. However, he did not appear to argue the matter. Therefore, vide order dated 18.12.2024, in place of Mr. S.N. Mishra, Mr. S.C.D. Dash, Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court in the matter. Mr. Dash also remained absent. Therefore, vide order dated 10.02.2026, Mr. B.K. Ragada, Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae along with Ms. Chetana Prakash, Advocate to assist the Court in place of Mr. S.C.D. Dash. Ms. Chetana Prakash assisted Mr. Ragada in the matter when the matter was heard and subsequently on 19.02.2026 she filed a detailed written note of submission along with relied upon judgments.
3. Heard Mr. B.K. Ragada, learned Amicus Curiae along with Ms. Chetana Prakash, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant and Mr. Aurobinda Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent-State.
4. The prosecution case in terse and brief is that on 09.02.1992, at about 8 p.m., when the informant was returning home, he found the accused lifting his daughter to a nearby place. On his protest, the accused gave him a push and after proceeding to a short distance, dealt a knife blow on the belly of his daughter Rosi Bibi making her intestine surge forward. When the informant shouted for help, the people of the locality arrived at the spot and the accused fled away from the spot. The injured was shifted to the Kendrapara Hospital for treatment, but as her condition was serious, she was referred to the S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack for treatment. Hence, the F.I.R.
5. The plea of the accused is one of complete denial. He claimed trial, therefore, after framing of charges under Section 307 of the IPC, he was put to trial.
6. The prosecution has examined nine witnesses in support of its case. P.W.1 is the informant. P.W.2 was a witness to the seizure of M.O.I. P.W.3 is the daughter of the informant (P.W.1), who is a post-occurrence witness. P.W.4 was Rosi Bibi, who was injured. P.W.5 is the daughter of the informant (P.W.1), who was a post-occurrence witness. P.W.6 was the Investigating Officer, who submitted the charge-sheet in the present case. P.W.7 was the doctor, who treated P.W.4 at S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack. P.W.8 and P.W.9 were the witnesses to the seizure.
7. The sole appellant stood charged for commission of the offence under Section 307 of the IPC. The learned trial Court, after analysing the evidence, arrived at a conclusion that the occurrence took place in the evening of 09.02.1992. Rosi Bibi-P.W.4 a young woman of 22 years was brutally attacked by the accused-appellant as a result of which she had to be hospitalised for a considerable long period of time. The learned trial Court was of the view that the present case is borne out of a love story, anger and revenge which led to the bloody consequences. However, the prosecution has failed to bring on record any such evidence which would give a hint regarding the intention of the appellant to attack P.W.4 least the case of love, anger and revenge.
8. P.W.1 is the father of the victim, who is the informant in the present case. He has deposed that on the date of occurrence, when he was returning home from the market, he found that the accused grabbing his daughter.
