The court affirmed the conviction for attempt to murder but granted probation instead of imprisonment due to the appellant's age and subsequent conduct, emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment.

JUDGMENT :

SIBO SANKAR MISHRA, J.

1. The sole appellant has filed the present Criminal Appeal assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.02.1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in S.T. Case No.146/29 of 1992-93 convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of three years.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the accused-appellant and the injured are the residents of O.P. Mill Colony of Brajrajnagar. The injured had given a pant cloth piece to the accused, but the accused appellant did not pay the cost of that cloth piece. On 12.02.1992 at about 6 P.M., the injured asked the accused to pay back the money. So, there was an altercation between them. The accused-appellant paid the money. But after sometime, at about 8 P.M., while the injured was strolling in the colony, the accused stabbed at the upper left abdomen of the injured. The injured was hospitalised, but he could survive despite grievous injury.

3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined 8 witnesses. Out of whom, P.Ws.1 and 2 were the doctors, who had examined the injured. P.W.3 was the injured himself. P.W.4 is the father of the injured. P.W.5 was the seizure witness. P.W.6 was a witness to the quarrel. P.W.7 was the Police Officer, who investigated into the case and P.W.8 was a helper.

4. Heard Mr. Bhabani Shankar Rayaguru, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms. Suvalaxmi Devi, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent-State.

5. The learned trial Court, after appreciating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, recorded the following findings:

“12. To reiterate the witnesses P.Ws.3, 5, 6 & 8 make statements that the injured was shifted to the clinic of P.W.1. It is evident from the statement of P.W.1 that she is a private medical practitioner having a clinic at Brajrajnagar. She had examined the injured and found an incised wound situated in between the belly and chest of left side which was probably caused by a pointed cutting weapon. The seized knife, M.O.I was examined by her on police requisition and she opines that such knife could cause the aforesaid injury. She has further opined that the injury of the injured was sufficient to cause the death of a person in ordinary course. As the injury was serious in nature, she advised to shift him to other hospital. P.W.2 was a Medical Officer then attached to E.S.I. hospital. The injured was taken to him by 11.45 p.m. of that night with a stitched wound below the left ribs cage. He advised to shift the patient to other hospital. As mentioned above, it is evident from the statements of witnesses inclusive of P.W.4 the father of the injured that the injured was shifted to Burla Medical College Hospital, where he was hospitalized for 19 days. These factors reveal that the injury was quite serious in nature and was sufficient to cause the death of person in ordinary course:

13. The statements of witnesses remain absolutely unassailed.

14. Hence, there is clinching and unassailed evidence that the accused had picked up quarrel with the injured in connection with the price of a pant piece. Soon thereafter he stabbed the injured between the chest and abdomen of the left part. He was found with blood stained knife which was recovered from his possession. P.W.3 states that by such knife the accused stabbed him. The doctor found such injury and opines that the knife, M.O.I could cause such inju