Conviction for attempted murder requires intent or knowledge of causing fatal injury, corroborated by witness and medical evidence, despite the victim’s hostility.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. SAHOO, J.

1. The appellant Sandeep Kumar Sahoo in JCRLA No.57 of 2012 and the appellant Deepak Kumar Mangaraj in CRLA No.9 of 2012 faced trial in the Court of learned Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puri in Sessions Trial Case No.18/276 of 2010-09 for commission of offences punishable under sections 394/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter ‘I.P.C.’) and sections 25/27 of the Arms Act on the accusation that on 27.06.2009 at about 12.30 p.m. at village Motori near Gatiswar Dev temple, they attempted to commit robbery of Rs.30,000/- (rupees thirty thousand) from Subash Chandra Senapati (P.W.5) and also attempted to commit murder of P.W.5 by firing pistol in furtherance of common intention and that they were found in possession of a pistol without any valid licence and the pistol was used without any valid licence.

The learned trial Court, vide impugned judgment and order dated 29.10.2011, found the appellants not guilty for the offence under section 25 of Arms Act and acquitted them of such charge. However, both the appellants were held guilty for the offences under sections 394/307/34 of I.P.C. and section 27 of Arms Act. The appellants were sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) each, in default to undergo R.I. for one month for the offence under section 394 of I.P.C., R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) each, in default to undergo R.I. for one month for the offence under section 307 of I.P.C. and R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) each, in default to undergo R.I. for one month each for the offence under section 27 of Arms Act and the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Prosecution Case

2. The prosecution case, as per the first information report (hereinafter ‘F.I.R.’) lodged by informant Hare Krushna Badajena (P.W.3), in short, is that P.W.3 was a businessman and he was having business dealing with Subash Chandra Senapati (P.W.5). On 27.06.2009, P.W.3 had been to village Motori near the temple of deity Gatiswar Dev in order to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- to P.W.5 in connection with the business and at about 12.30 p.m. when P.W.3 handed over the cash and P.W.5 was counting the same, the appellants arrived at the spot in a Hero Honda motor cycle and the appellant Deepak Mangaraj fired gun shot at P.W.5 from a revolver, which caused severe bleeding injury on the left thigh of P.W.5. P.W.3 raised hullah, for which the outsiders arrived at the spot and overpowered both the appellants and they disclosed their identities. The police team from Mandarbasta Outpost arrived at the spot and made necessary arrangement for shifting P.W.5 to the hospital. The appellants were handed over to the police and on receipt of the F.I.R. from P.W.3, Kanas P.S. Case No.24 dated 27.06.2009 was registered under sections 394/307 of I.P.C. and sections 25/27 of Arms Act against the appellants.

P.W.6 Krushna Chandra Das, who was the S.I. of Police attached to Mandarbasta Outpost under Kanas Police Station, upon receiving information about the occurrence, came to the spot where he received the F.I.R. from P.W.3 and took up investigation of the case. The appellants were detained by the villagers and were arrested and one 9 mm pistol along with live cartridges was seized. On being produced by one Pabitra Mohan Pattnaik (P.W.4) in presence of witness, the Hero Honda motor cycle, empty cartr