The court maintained the conviction under Section 307 IPC while allowing benefits under the Probation of Offenders Act based on age and conduct.

JUDGMENT :

V. Narasingh, J.

1. This Criminal Revision has been filed assailing the judgment dated 21.12.2002 passed by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Baripada, Mayurbhanj, in Criminal Appeal No.86/33 of 2002, affirming the order of conviction dated 23.08.2002 of the Petitioner passed by the learned Asst. Sessions Judge-cum-C.J.M, Baripada, Mayurbhanj, in S.T. No.27/127 of 2001 (G.R. Case No.297 of 2000) under Section 307 I.P.C. and imposing a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- ( Rupees Three Thousands only), and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and further directing payment of Rs.1,000/- as compensation to the injured Bhagirathi Das in case of realization of the fine amount.

2. It is the case of the Prosecution that Smt. Gita Das (Informant), wife of injured Bhagirathi Das of village Kohi under Morada Police Station, while residing in a house constructed on land recorded in her father’s name, on 01.04.2000 at about 2 A.M., the accused-appellant Jayanta Tipiria along with Sarat Tipiria, Sibasankar Tipiria and Bijay Tipiria (since acquitted), entered her house being armed with weapons, damaged the house, threw away the household articles, and the present Appellant shot an arrow at the informant’s husband, piercing his right chest and causing a bleeding injury, and they took away an attache, radio, etc., thereafter, the injured was sent for medical examination. Subsequently, a case was registered at the instance of the wife of the injured and, after investigation, submitted charge-sheet under Sections 148 /427/307/149 I.P.C against the Petitioner and three others.

3. The case of the defense was one of complete denial and false implication.

4. To drive home the charge, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses, of whom P.W.1, the informant, P.W.2, informant’s husband and injured, P.W.7, the medical officer, P.W.14, the I.O. are the material witnesses. Several documents were exhibited and marked as Exts.1 to 11/1, of which Ext.10, being the spot map is of significance.

Though no documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused- Petitioners, one witness was examined as D.W.1.

5. On considering the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court while acquitting the other three accused persons, convicted the Appellant under Section 307 of IPC and directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and there is further direction for payment of Rs.1,000/- as compensation to the injured-Bhagirathi Das in case of realization of the fine amount.

The Appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence vide judgment dated 21.12.2002 in Criminal Appeal No.86/33 of 2002. Assailing which, the present revision has been preferred.

6. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the appreciation of evidence by the learned trial Court is perverse. In as much as P.Ws.4, 5, 6, 8, 10 and 11 are post-occurrence witnesses. Except P.W.10, all others resiled from their statements and did not support the prosecution. And, referring to the evidence of P.W.1, the informant and P.W.2, the injured, he submits that no reliance can be placed on the said statements to record a finding of guilt and, as such, the appreciation being perverse and affirmed by the appellate Court, warrants interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

8. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that notwithstanding that some of the post-occurrence witnesses, as noted above, hav