The judgment establishes that the intention or knowledge of the offender in doing the act is crucial in determining the charge of attempt to murder, and the nature of injuries and evidence provided by witnesses and doctors are essential in reaching a decision.

JUDGMENT :

P.K. Tripathy, J. - Heard the parties and the judgment is as follows.

2. Appellants were accused persons in Sessions Case No. 13/7 of 1988 of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bolangir. They were charged for the offences u/s 148 and 307 read with Section 149, I.P.C. on the allegations that on 03.06.1987 they constituted an unlawful assembly to commit riot and were armed with deadly weapons like lathis, tangis and iron rods and that in furtherance of the common object of that unlawful assembly, they assaulted Sudhansu Naik (P.W. 4), Aditya Kumar Singh Nina alias Aditya Singh Babu (P.W. 13), Karunakar Behera (P.W. 2), Raj Kishore Dalai (P.W. 10), Achuta Bhanj (P.W. 1) and Biranchi Behera (P.W. 8) with a view to attempt their murder.

3. In further detail, prosecution case is that on 03.06.1987, Sitala Sasti festival was being observed in village Jarasingha. The aforesaid injured witnesses had gone to that village to witness the festival. On the ground that the aforesaid injured witnesses misbehaved the ladies of village Jarasingha, the accused persons forming an unlawful assembly, attempted to commit murder of the injured witnesses.

As noted in the impugned judgment, defence plea of the accused persons was that the inured prosecution witnesses misbehaved to the ladies and therefore they (the accused persons) protested and in that connection, there were some altercations, but the prosecution party apprehending criminal action against them, has created a false case as a counter blast.

4. To substantive the charge, prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses including the above mentioned injured as the eyewitnesses. In addition to that P.W. Nos. 3, 9 and 11 were also examined as eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P.W. No. 14 is the Investigating Officer and rest of the witnesses are the doctors, who treated the inured persons and issued their Injury Certificates and opinion reports. Weapons like, Tangia, Lathis and iron rods were seized in course of investigation and marked as M.Os. I to VI on the ground that those are the weapons of offence. Accused did not adduce any defence evidence.

5. On assessment of evidence on record, learned Addl. Sessions Judge found that the occurrence is proved not only from the statement of the prosecution witnesses/eye witnesses to the occurrence but also from the admission made by the accused persons in their defence plea. He did not grant credit to the defence plea of innocence and found the accused persons to be members of the unlawful assembly, who inflicted the injuries by different weapons. Accordingly, the accused persons were convicted for the offences and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years u/s 148, I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for eight years u/s 307/149, I.P.C.

6. Bone of contention of the Appellants is that learned Addl. Sessions Judge unreasonably discarded the defence plea, inasmuch as, in course of their examination, the Doctors have opined that the injuries found on the body of different injured persons were possible by fall. Since the accused persons took the plea that the indecent act of the inured persons hunt sentiment of the local people and therefore, they (the injured persons) ran away on the fear of assault and in that process, they fell and sustained the injuries. The aforesaid argument is attractive but not with any substance, inasmuch as, according to the evidence of the doctors, some of the injuries were possible by fall but not the incised wound etc. Possibility of an injury by fall automatically does not make out that the injury was not caused by assault, when there is specific allegation of assault and hurt which has been substantially corroborated from the evidence of the doctors. Thus, this Court finds no illegality in appreciation of evidence and recording finding by learned Addl. Sessions Judge on the occurrence of assault. The criticism to such finding is futile.

7. Learned Counsel for the Appellants argues that looki