JUDGMENT
L. Mohapatra, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by Shri S.K. Mishra, Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela in Sessions Trial No. 91/26 of 1994 convicting the Appellant under Section 302 IPC for causing murder of one Menja Munda and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and also convicting the Appellant for commission of offence under Section 307 IPC for attempting to commit murder of Sukram Sandil alias Tuti and Ramdas Manki and sentencing him to imprisonment for seven years for the aforesaid offence, but at the same time directing both the sentences to run concurrently.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on the date of occurrence, Appellant assaulted one Laxmi Majhi with a sword who protected the blow by raising her hand and sustained cut injury in her right hand and shouted for help. When her brother came out of the house, Appellant chased him holding the sword. Laxmi Majhi followed the Appellant to know the fate of her brother and found the Appellant dealing blows by means of the said sword on Sukram. It is also the case of the prosecution that the Appellant dealt sword blows on the head of one Ramdas who was engaged in fencing. When Laxmi Majhi returned to her house, she found the deceased-Menja lying in front of her house sustaining head injury and was struggling. Thereafter Laxmi Majhi came to the police station along with her brother-Sukram as well as Ramdas along with the sword which had been snatched away from the Appellant and found the daughter of Menja present at the Police Station. The matter was reported and the case was registered for commission of offence under Sections 302/326/307 IPC.
3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was also filed for commission of the offences under the aforesaid three Sections of the IPC. However, at the time of framing of charge, Trial Court framed charge for commission of offences under Sections 302/307 IPC.
4. The prosecution examined as many as eighteen witnesses to prove charges, but none was examined on behalf of the defence.
5. The plea of the Appellant was complete denial of the occurrence. The Learned Sessions Judge relying on the version of the injured eye-witnesses as well as the eye-witness to the occurrence so far as the deceased is concerned, found the Appellant guilty of both the charges and convicted him thereunder. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant challenges the Judgment on the ground that the evidence of the injured witnesses as well as the eye-witness to the occurrence so far it relates to the deceased, are full of contradictions and such evidence could not have been relied upon by the Trial Court for convicting the Appellant of the offences alleged. The Learned Counsel for the State also referred to the evidence and submitted that there is consistency in the version of the witnesses as well as the eye-witness to the occurrence so far as it relates to the deceased and contradictions pointed out by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant are not material for the purpose of the case.
6. P.W.1 is Sukram Tuti who is one of the injured who in his deposition, has stated that on the date of occurrence, i.e., 15.12.2007 at about 12.00 p.m., when he was cutting wood in front of his house and was talking to one Ramdas Manki who was putting fence in front of his house, Appellant came with a sword and assaulted him on his head. But the blow struck one side of his head causing a bleeding injury. The Appellant also dealt two more blows; one of which hit his left upper arm. At that point of time his wife came out and both of them snatched away the sword from the Appellant. Nothing has been brought out in cross-examination to disbelieve this witness. P.W.2 is another injured who was putting a fence in front of his house when the Appellant assaulted him by means of a sword. There is nothing in cross-examination to disbelieve the statement of this witness. P.W.3 is the daughter of the deceased and an eye-witness to the occurrence so far as it relates to the deceased. In her deposition she has stated that on the date of occurrence, there was quarrel between her mother and Hari (PW 6). At that point of time Appellant came armed with the sword and assaulted her mother. She has specifically stated that the Appellant dealt a blow by means of the sword on the neck of her mother. Nothing is brought out in cross-examination to disbelieve this witness.
7. P.W.11 is the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination and found one incised wound on the back of the neck of the deceased, exposing muscles, vessels and the tissues. Two other injuries were also found on the body of the deceased. P.W.12 is the doctor who had examined the injured witness Hari Munda and found four injuries. P.W.13 examined Laxmi Majhi and found incised injury on her right palm which corroborates the deposition of Laxmi Majhi that she was assaulted on her hand. P.W.13 also examined Sukram Tuti (P.W.1) who had received one incised injury and two lacerated injuries. This witness also examined the injured Ramdas Manki and found one incised injury on the temporal region of the head. The deposition of Laxmi Majhi and Ramdas Manki corroborate the medical evidence.
8. In view of the nature of evidence as discussed above, it is dear that the version of the injured witnesses is corroborated by the medical evidence and version of P.W.3, daughter of the deceased is also corroborated by the medical evidence. The sword which had been used by the Appellant for commission of these offences, also contained human blood and there is no explanation as to how blood was found on the sword.
9. Considering the evidence in entirety, we are also of the view that the Appellant has been rightly convicted for commission of both the offences.
10. We do not find any merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed.