ANUPRAM SATNAMI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed on 15.1.2005 by Shri B.C. Tripathy, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nuapada in SESS. Case No. 131/22 of 2003 (arising out of G.R. Case No. 138 of 2003 of the court of learned S.D.J.M., Nuapada) by which he convicted the appellant (hereinafter called "the accused") under Sections 450 and 307 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/ - (rupees two thousand), in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for six months u/s. 450 I.P.C. and further to undergo R.I. for a period of five years and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/ - (rupees three thousand) in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for one year u/s. 307 I.P.C.. Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) THE short facts are that Bhuri Bai Satnami (P.W.7) the wife of the accused had come to the house of her mother Bisahin Satnami (P.W.8) having quarrelled with the accused. The accused came to take her back about eight days prior to the occurrence but she denied to go with him. On the date of occurrence i.e. on 29.05.03 at about 11.30 A.M. the accused trespassed into the house of P.W.8 when P.Ws.7,8 and other members of the family were present. All on a sudden, he picked up an axe and gave several cut blows on the head and other parts of the body of P.W.8 with a view to kill her, causing bleeding injuries. Hearing the shout of the injured other witnesses came to the spot and snatched away the axe from the hand of the accused due to which the injured was saved. The son of the injured Deepak Kumar Satnami (P.W.1) lodged a written report before Jonk Police Station on which a P.S. case was registered and investigation was taken up. During investigation the I.O. sent the injured for medical examination, visited the spot, examined witnesses and after all other necessary investigation submitted charge sheet against the accused under Sections 450 and 307 of the I.P.C.

(3.) SHRI H.K. Mallik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/accused has submitted vehemently that the accused had right of entry to the house in question since he was the son -in -law of P.W.8 and further since his wife was residing in that house at that time. Therefore, the case of trespass and consequently a case under Section 450 of the I.P.C. is not made out. He has further submitted that witnesses who have supported the prosecution case are interested witnesses and therefore the trial court below should not have believed them. Finally, he has submitted that even if the entire occurrence is taken to be true then also a case under Section 307 is not made out. Sri S. Behera, Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, has supported the impugned judgment.