MADHU MAJHI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the order of conviction and sentence recorded by learned Sessions Judge Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna in Sessions Case No.1 of 1989 against the appellant.

(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details the prosecution allegation in the above noted Sessions Case is that on 9.5.1988 at about noon when Bhimsen Majhi (P.W.1) was returning from Kesinga on his cycle the appellant and his co -accused -Rajendra Majhi attacked him with an axe and knife causing multiple bleeding injuries on his back, stomach and right wrist. P.W.2, who was passing on the road at that time intervened and saved P.W.1, whereafter P.W.1 went to village Sirol, told about the incident to one Udaya Ganda (P.W.6) and requested him to convey the message to his family members. He then lost his sense and was carried to Kesinga Hospital. P.W.3, brother, of P.W.1 informed the police authorities about the incident who rushed to the spot and found the cycle of P.W., axe and other articles lying scattered there. The officer, then went to the Kesinga Hospital where P.W.1 was undergoing treatment. There on the information of P.W.1 F.I.R. (Ext.11) was prepared and sent to the police station for registration. The police authorities then conducted investigation during the course of which they examined witnesses, seized the incriminating articles including an axe from the spot and a knife on production of the appellant and on completion of the investigation submitted charge -sheet under Section 307/34, I.P.C. The appellant and the co -accused took plea of complete denial and false implication due to previous enmity.

(3.) MR . Panigrahi, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that there was previous enmity and litigation between the appellant and P.W.1 for which P.W. 1 created a false case with the help of the police, but without attaching due importance to the previous enmity of the parties and without scrutinizing the evidences carefully, learned trial Judge made a superfluous approach and recorded the order of conviction basing on some inadmissible and unreliable evidence. Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel on the other hand, argued that when eye witnesses are there and the evidence of such witnesses are supported by medical evidence and other circumstantial evidence there was good reason for the trial Court to hold the appellant guilty under Section 325, IPC. Mr. Mishra also argued that enmity is a double edged weapon and evidence shows that because of the previous enmity the appellant and his co -accused carried the attack on P.W.1 and that this aspect was also discussed by learned trial Judge in the impugned judgment. Mr. Mishra claimed that the impugned judgment is in tune with the materials on record and the established principles of law.