The intention to kill under Section 307 IPC can be inferred from the nature of the attack and weapon used, even if the resulting injuries are not grievous.

JUDGMENT :

SIBO SANKAR MISHRA, J.

The present Criminal Revision filed under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.03.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kendrapara in Criminal Appeal No.05 of 2007, whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.03.2007 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kendrapara in S.T. Case No.84/660 of 2004 against the present petitioners has been confirmed.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that, on 25.01.2001, at about 7:00 P.M., while the informant, Smt. Ratnamala Das, was cooking in her kitchen, the accused persons arrived there and abused her in filthy and obscene language while vandalizing her household articles. Upon her protest, the accused persons entered into the kitchen and assaulted her as well as her three-year-old son by dealing fist blows, kicks and slaps to them. Subsequently, when she raised hullah, her husband, Pitambara Das, came to the spot and intervened. The accused-Petitioner No.1, Kshirod Das, by means of a crowbar, dealt a blow aiming at the head of the husband of the informant, intending to kill him. However, the crowbar struck the left ear of Pitambara Das causing a bleeding injury. Out of fear and in order to save his life, the victim entered the house of one Kanduri Das, however the accused-petitioners dragged him out of there and assaulted him further. The accused-Petitioner No.1 assaulted him by means of a crowbar, whereas the accused-Petitioner No.2 assaulted him by means of a katuri. The other accused persons, who were spectating the scene, threatened to kill the informant’s husband. The matter was finally settled upon the intervention of the nearby villagers, after which the informant’s brother-in-law, Susanta, shifted the victim to the hospital for treatment. Being aggrieved by this incident, the informant lodged an F.I.R. at the Police Station. After the completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was submitted and the Court below framed the charges against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 448 /354/323/294/307/34 of the IPC .

3. The prosecution examined a total of 8 witnesses and exhibited 3 documents in order to substantiate the charges against the accused persons. The plea of the defence was that of complete denial and false implication, but no evidence were adduced by the defence in proof of its plea. Out of the 8 witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 4 are the material witnesses to the occurrence, whereas, P.W.5 was the informant, P.W.6 was the injured victim, Pitambar Das, who is the husband of the informant. P.W.7 was the I.O. in the present case, whereas, P.W.8 was the doctor at Marsaghai Hospital, who examined the injured after the incident. However, during the course of the trial, all the material witnesses in the present case, i.e., P.Ws.1 to 4, refused to support the case of the prosecution and had, therefore, been declared hostile.

4. After analyzing the entire evidence on record, the learned trial court acquitted the accused-petitioners of the offences punishable U/s. 448/354/323/294/34 of the IPC but found them guilty of the offences punishable U/s.307/34 of the and convicted them thereunder. The learned trial court sentenced both the accused-petitioners to undergo R.I for five years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (one thousand) each, in default, to undergo further R.I for six months.

5. Being aggrieved, the accused-petitioners challenged the judgment and order of conviction and sentence in appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Kendrapara in Criminal Appeal No.05 of 2007.

6. The Appellate Court appreciated the entire evidenc