JUDGMENT

(1) This revision is directed against the judgment passed by the learned additional Sessions Judge, Jeypore dismissing the Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 1993 (Criminal Appeal No. 152 of 1992 of the court of learned Sessions Judge, Jeypore)and confirming the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions judge-Cum-Subordinate Judge, Jeypore in s. C. No. 74 of 1991 (S. C. No. 292 of 1991 of the Court of Sessions Judge, Jeypore)convicting petitioner No. 1 under Section 337 of the I. P. C. and sentencing him to undergo R. I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default R. I. for fifteen days; and petitioner No. 2 Sanjay alias Babuli under Section 307 of the I. P. C. and sentencing him to undergo R. I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default r. I. for six months.

(2) Informant P. W. 1 is petitioner No. 1's estranged wife. Prior to the occurrence the informant was residing in a rented house separately from her husband. Petitioner No. 2 is informant's step son. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 23-7-1991 at about 10. 00 a. M., P. W. 1 asked petitioner No. 2 as to why he used to bolt the door of her house from outside. At this, petitioner No. 1 pelted stones causing injuries on her hand and head. The informant went and complained before petitioner No. l's uncle. Petitioner no. 1 arrived there and asked petitioner No. 2 finish her by stabbing. Petitioner No. 2 came out from the house with a knife and stabbed on P. W. 1's abdomen as a result of which P. W. 1 sustained injury and fell down senseless. She received treatment in the hospital. Receiving telephonic message regarding the incident, S. I. of Police, Jeypore Town p. W. 15 made Station Diary Entry and directed S. I. of Police P. W. 14 to verify the information. After regaining her sense in the hospital, P. W. 1 orally reported regarding the occurrence before P. W. 14. The report was reduced into writing by S. I. of Police P. W. 13 and treated as F. I. R. In course of investigation witnesses were examined and seizures including seizure of weapon of offence M. O. II were effected. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against petitioners.

Petitioners took the plea of denial.

(3) In order to substantiate the charges, prosecution examined fifteen witnesses apart from relying upon documents marked ext. 1 to 9 and material exhibits M. Os. I and II. P. Ws. 1, 13, 14 and 15 have already been introduced. P. Ws. 2, 3, 4, 5, 10 and 12 did not support the case of the prosecution and were declared to be hostile witnesses. P. W. 6 is post-occurrence witness. P. W. 7 deposed regarding prior enmity between the parties. P. W. 8 is the doctor who medically examined P. W. 1. P. Ws. 9 and 11 were witnesses to seizure. Relying upon the evidence of injured informant P. W. 1 corroborated by medical evidence of P. W. 8, and the circumstances of strained relationship between the parties and recovery of weapon of offence, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioners, as stated supra.

(4) In support of the revision it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Court below should not have based their findings solely on the evidence of P. W. 1 when other witnesses were available and did not support her version. It was further contended that even if the evidence of P. W. 1 is accepted, commission of offence under Section 307 of the I. P. C. is not made out against petitioner No. 2 inasmuch as circumstances attending upon the occurrence do not indicate that the petitioner No. 2 intended to cause P. W. 1's murder. In support of such contention learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decisions of this Court in Abhiram mukhi v. State of Orissa, (1996) 10 OCR 426 : (1996 Cri LJ 2341), Srikumar Bhadra v. State of Orissa (2002) 22 OCR 395 and Gula alias Dibya Lochan Nath and Ors. v. State of orissa, (2007) 36 OCR 688 : (2007 Cri LJ 2582). It was contended that keeping in view the relati