Kanchan Chakraborty, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against a judgement and order dated 24.2.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Siliguri in Sessions Trial no. 16 of 1008 thereby convicting the appellant for committing offence punishable under Section 326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for 3 years and 7 years, respectively with fine. On 20.6.2007, at 7.45, hours Bhabesh Chandra Ray lodged one F.I.R with Kharibari Police Station alleging therein that on 19.6.2007, at about 10.30 P.M., Indranath Barman (Appellant) attacked his daughter Lata Ray with deadly weapon when she was proceeding towards latrine and, as a result, she sustained serious bleeding injuries on her head and other parts of her body and that soon after the incident, on the protest of Bhabesh Chandra Ray, Indranath Barman (Appellant) fled away from the spot. Lata Ray was taken to Naxalbari Rural Hospital for her treatment. Initially a G.D. entry was recorded but afterwards on the basis of the F.I.R., Kharibari Police station case no. 15 of 2007 dated 20.6.2007 was started against the appellant under Section 326 and 307 of IPC.
(2.) THE appellant was arrayed to face charges under Section 326 and 307 of Indian Penal Code. He pleaded not guilty to the charges and as a result, the trial commenced. 14 witnesses, in all, were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Some documents, such as, injury report formal, FIR, discharge certificate, sketch map of the place of occurrence etc. were admitted into evidence and marked Exhibit on behalf of the prosecution. No witness was examined nor any document was placed by the appellant in course of trial. The learned Trial Court upon consideration of the evidence on record, oral and documentary, found that the prosecution brought home the charges against the appellant and accordingly, recorded the impugned order of conviction and sentence. The judgement impugned has been assailed in this appeal on the following grounds : a) that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its true and proper perspective; b) that the presence of witnesses in place of occurrence was entirely doubtful which the learned Court failed to appreciate; c) that the learned Court failed to consider the discrepancies in the statement of the witnesses on material points; d) that the prosecution case was entirely doubtful so far as it relates to causing hurt to Lata Rau by the appellant; e) that the learned Court failed to appreciate that necessary and important materials like the offending weapon, blood strained wearing apparels and blood strained earth were not seized by the I.O.; f) that on all probabilities, the statement of the victim to the Doctor indicated that she did not identify the person who assaulted her; g) that the learned Court failed to appreciate also that none of the witnesses watched the incident and it was not possible for anybody to identify the assailant at that particular time in such particular place; h) that the judgement being otherwise bad in law, is not sustainable and liable to be set aside;
(3.) MR . Mukherjee, learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant contended that there was inordinate in lodging the F.I.R. Although a reason has been given in the F.I.R., which, according to him, is not acceptable in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is contended further that before lodging of the F.I.R. as well as G.D. entry no. 835 dated 20.6.2007, the injured Lata Ray was examined by the Medical Officer, Kharibari Rural Hospital (P.W. 1)on 19.6.2007 and a statement was made by the injured to him which he recorded in the injury report which has been marked as Exhibit 1. At that time, Lata Ray, the injured did not disclose the name of the appellant as the assailant. The persons took her to hospital also did not disclose the name of the assailant at that time. Mr. Mukherjee contended that it was the first recording of the alleged incident to any third person/independent person which, astonishingly enough, did not disclose the name of the assailant for reason not analyzed. Mr. Mukherjee contended further that according to the Exhibit 1 as well as statement of the P.W. 1, the patient Lata Ray was conscious when she was brought in the Hospital. But the victim Lata Ray as P.W. 3 stated categorically in her examination in chief that the she became senseless and thereafter regained her sense in the next morning when she found herself in the Nakshalbari Hospital. This discrepancy together with the fact that the name of the assailant was not disclosed at the first opportunity coupled with delay in lodging the F.I.R. altogether had cast shadow of doubt on the prosecution case.;