LAWS(ORI)-2021-8-13

SURESH MUNDA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

Decided On August 05, 2021
SURESH MUNDA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ODISHA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Suresh Munda faced trial in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in S.T. Case No.219 of 2013 for commission of offences punishable under Sec. 452/307 of the Indian Penal Code on the accusation that on 28/8/2013 at about 9.30 p.m., he entered into the house of Chaitu Munda (P.W.3) and assaulted him by means of an axe with an intention to cause his death. The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dtd. 5/4/2016, found the appellant guilty of both the charges and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000.00 (rupees five thousand), in default, to undergo further imprisonment for two months for the offence under sec. 452 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000.00 (rupees twenty thousand), in default, to undergo further imprisonment for one year for the offence under sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case, in short, as per the first information report (Ext.2) lodged by Balmati Munda (P.W.1), the wife of P.W.3 before the I.I.C. of Burla police station is that, on 28/8/2013 at about 9.30 p.m. while she and her husband (P.W.3) were sleeping in their house, the appellant by committing criminal trespass into their house being armed with an axe assaulted P.W.3 on his head and legs by axe as a result of which, he sustained bleeding injuries. When P.W.1 shouted, other persons of the locality rushed to the spot but the appellant fled away and in spite of frantic search at different places, the appellant could not be traced out. P.W.3 was shifted to V.S.S. Medical College and Hospital, Burla for treatment.

(3.) After submission of charge sheet and commitment of the case to the Court of Session, the learned trial Court on 16/4/2014 framed charges against the appellant as already stated and since the appellant refuted the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the sessions trial procedure was resorted to prosecute him and establish his guilt.