The court found a lack of intent to commit murder based on victim testimonies, modifying the convictions and allowing for probationary relief.

Judgment :

S.S. Mishra, J.

1. The present Criminal Revision Petition, filed by the petitioner under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.08.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (Vigilance), Phulbani in Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2013, whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.01.2012 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Phulbani, Kandhamal in S.T. No.24 of 2008 (S.T. No.70 of 2008 (DC)) has been modified while partly allowing the appeal.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the accused persons were in possession of the land recorded in the name of Lingaraj Behera, the father-in-law of the complainant since long. The complainant had earlier lodged a case before the Sub-Collector. On the direction of the Sub-Collector, the petitioners-accused had vacated the possession over the said land. However, frightening her father-in-law every now and then, the petitioners pick up quarrel and threaten. On 23.03.2006, at about 4.00 P.M., while the informant and her family members were discussing their next course of action, the accused persons came to their house armed with a knife, axe and thenga and threatened. When the husband of the informant went out, they surrounded him, and Akhay pierced a knife and her husband caught hold of Akhay to save his life. Dasarathi assaulted on his leg by an axe and when the informant was going to stop further attack on her husband, Jubati assaulted her by hitting on her head with an axe, but she sustained less injury on her head by averting the same by her hand, whereas her husband sustained injury on his leg. A report in that regard was given before the Phiringia Police Station.

On the basis of such allegation, the police registered an F.I.R., i.e., Phiringia P.S. Case No.26 of 2006 and after the completion of investigation, the charge sheet was submitted against the petitioners.

3. To bring home the charges, the prosecution examined altogether eleven witnesses and exhibited seven documents. The plea of defence was that of complete denial. In proof of their plea, no evidence was adduced from the side of the defence.

4. The learned trial Court analyzed the entire evidence on record and found the petitioner Nos.1 and 8 guilty of the offences under Sections 148 /307 of the IPC and also found rest of the petitioners guilty of the offences under /307/149 of the . However, the offences under Sections 147 /324/326/447/149 of the being not established against the said petitioners, they were acquitted. Petitioner Nos.1 & 8 were sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year under Section 148 of the and R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo further R.I. for three months under Section 307 of the and the learned trial Court sentenced the rest of the convicts to undergo R.I. for one year for the offence under of the and R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo further R.I. for three months under read with Section 149 of the . All the sentences were directed to be run concurrently.

5. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 31.01.2012 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Phulbani in S.T. Case No.24 of 2008/ S.T. No.70 of 2008 (DC) was called in question by filing Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2013 before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (Vigilance), Phulbani by the petitioners.

6. Since the appeal failed, the petitioners challenged the judgments/orders of conviction and sentence of both the Courts below in the present Criminal Revision Petition.

7