SIDDHARTHA CHATTOPADHYAY, J. - (1.) Doubting the correctness of the judgment dated 22.07.2014 and order of conviction dated 23.07.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Haldia in Sessions Trial No. 48 of 2013 arising out of Sutahata Police Station Case No. 304/12, the convict/appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973 and by the impugned judgment, learned Trial Court had found the appellant guilty under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to fine of Rs.10,000/ - for each offence.
(2.) According to the appellant, the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in it's proper perspectives. The learned Trial Court ignored the substantial omissions and contradictions in the evidence and as a result the said Court has come to an erroneous finding, which is required to be set aside. The learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Manjit Singh appearing on behalf of the prosecution argued that the impugned judgment does not call for any interference as the evidence of prosecution witnesses are trustworthy.
(3.) In such circumstances, factual aspect has to be revisited. At the very outset, I may be permitted to say if anybody wants to read the F.I.R. through his inner eyes, he would see that the F.I.R. has been written not by the ink but by the tears of the victim. During the pendency of trial and appeal, obviously the said tears became a glacier.;