The court affirmed the conviction of two appellants for attempt to murder, emphasizing the necessity of proving intent beyond reasonable doubt; others acquitted due to insufficient evidence.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. Mishra, J.

The present criminal appeal filed by the appellants under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.08.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Titilagarh in Sessions Case No. 48/11 of 1997, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the accused-appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 148/149/307 of the I.P.C. and, accordingly, sentenced them to undergo R.I. for one year each for the offence under Section 148 I.P.C. and further sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to undergo R.I. for one month each for the offence under Sections 149/307 IPC.

2. Heard Mr. D.P. Dhal, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and Mr. S. Panigrahi, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

3. The prosecution story as per the FIR is that on 15.07.1996 at about 7.00 A.M. at village Sandhisar the accused persons, namely, Soundarjya and Lalu scolded and threatened Hazari Hans. The brother of the informant protested to their easing in his land called 'Satlengi'. Thereafter, all the accused persons arrived on the thrashing floor of the informant situated over that 'Satlengi' land being armed with Thengas, Lathi and Axe. The accused Lalu scolded in filthy language and assaulted the father of the informant by a rod, accused Soundarjya assaulted Hazari with an axe on his head and leaving Hazari taking him to be dead accused persons chased the informant, his father and his brothers. On the basis of the written report of the informant, Bangamuda P.S. Case No.23 dated 15.07.1996 was registered and investigation was conducted and charge sheet was filed. Hence, against all the eleven accused persons the learned trial court framed the charges under Sections 307/149/148 IPC and on their stance of complete denial and claim for trial, they were put to trial to face the charges, as mentioned above.

4. The prosecution in order to bring home charges examined as many as twelve witnesses. Out of them, P.W.1 was the informant, P.Ws.5, 6 and 8 are the victims, P.Ws.3, 4 and 9 were the co-villagers and the eye witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.7 was the doctor, who examined P.Ws.5 and 6. P.Ws.11 and 12 were two Investigating Officers, who investigated the present case.

5. By analyzing the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, the learned trial court convicted all the accused persons, as per the charges mentioned above, and on the said count, sentenced them to undergo R.I. for one year each for the offence under Section 148 I.P.C. and further sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to undergo R.I. for one month each for the offence under Sections 149/307 IPC.

6. Aggrieved by the aforementioned, all the accused-appellants conjointly filed the present appeal. The appeal is pending since 1997. During pendency of the appeal, it was reported by the prosecution that appellant nos.6, 8, 10 and 11 have already expired. In the absence of any application either on behalf of their legal heirs or the next friends, the appeal qua those deceased appellants, stood abated. Hence, the present appeal is to be considered qua appellant nos.1 to 5, 7 and 9. The analysis of the prosecution evidence borne on record qua the surviving appellants are being done to examine the sustainability of the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial court.

7. In the present case, there are three injured witnesses and one eye witness have been examined. P.Ws.1, 5 and 6 are the injured witnesses, whereas P.W.8 is the eye