KANCHAN CHAKRABORTY,J - (1.)THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 8.2.2010 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Court No.II, Uluberia in Sessions Trial No.177 of 2008 thereby convicting the appellant Sk. Ibrahim for committing offence under Section 304 (Part II) of the I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-.
(2.)ON 28.3.2007 at about 7.00 A.M., the appellant brutally assaulted his son Rakesh @ Chottu aged about four years and left the home. Chottu sustained injury due to that. In the evening at about 6.30 P.M., Mina Khatoon reported Joynal Abedin that her brother was not responding. Joynal Abedin and others had been to the house of Sk. Ibrahim and found that Rakesh was lying on the floor and he was dead. At that time, Mina informed them that her father Sk. Ibrahim (appellant) off and on assaulted her brother Rakesh brutally knowing very well that he was a patient of Ricket. Joynal Abedin lodged one F.I.R. with Uluberia P.S. on 29.3.2007 over the issue and accordingly, Uluberia Police Station Case No.107 of 2007 dated 29.3.2007 was started against the appellant. The appellant was arrayed to face charges under Section 304 of the I.P.C. He claimed to be innocence. Accordingly, the trial commenced.
Seven witnesses were examined in course of trial. Some documents were admitted into evidence and marked exhibits on behalf of the prosecution. The learned Trial Judge came to a conclusion that the appellant committed the offence under Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C. and accordingly, recorded his conviction and sentence which is impugned.

The appellant has come up with this appeal challenging the judgment, mainly, on the following grounds;

a) that the entire prosecution case is based on hearsay evidence which was not at all admissible in law; and b) that there was no eye witnesses to the incident and the eye witnesses, if any, neither cited nor examined as witnesses by the prosecution.

(3.)MR. Chatterjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that in the F.I.R lodged was marked Ext.1. It says clearly that the incident of assault had taken place at 7.00 A.M. and the lodger of the F.I.R., i.e., Joynal Abedin came to know about the incident at 6.30 P.M. from Meena Khatoon. It is needless to mention that according to the F.I.R., Joynal Abedin although lodged the F.I.R. was neither present at the time of occurrence nor soon thereafter. He had no direct knowledge of the incident also. Joynal Abedin was examined as P.W.1. He has stated what has been canvassed in the F.I.R. was heard from Mina Khatoon. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he wrote the F.I.R. as per dictation of Mina Khatoon from whom he came to know about the incident.
P.W.2 is the Scientific Officer of Forensic Department. He has examined the viscera of the accused and identified his report which was marked Ext.2.