Asha Arora, J. - (1.) By the instant revisional application the petitioner has assailed the judgment and order dated 30th April 2010, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Purba Medinipur in Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2009 affirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28th August 2008 passed in GR Case No. 478 of 1997 whereby the learned trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years.
(2.) Prosecution case in brief, as alleged against the petitioner is that on 12th March 1991 the marriage of the defacto complainant/victim, Namita Maity was solemnized with the petitioner in accordance with the Hindu rites and customs. Thereafter petitioner started inflicting torture upon the defacto complainant. On 31st May 1997 at about 9.00 p.m. when the defacto complainant was going to her father's house, petitioner attacked her on the road with a sharp cutting weapon and inflicted blows on her person, causing bleeding injuries. The injured victim was taken to Moyna police station wherefrom she was sent to Moyna B. P. H. C. for treatment. Subsequently the victim was referred to Tamluk Hospital where she was admitted for six days. Thereafter she was referred to PG Hospital in Kolkata and admitted there for sixteen days. On the basis of the written complaint of the victim, a criminal case under Section 498A/326 I.P.C. was initiated against the petitioner. Upon conclusion of investigation charge sheet was filed under Section 498-A and 326 IPC. Charge was framed under Section 498A and 326 IPC against the petitioner. During the trial eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution and several documents were exhibited. After conclusion of trial the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. In appeal, the trial court's judgment and order of conviction and sentence were affirmed which led to the present revision.
(3.) Mr. Samanta, learned advocate for the petitioner sought to impress upon this court that the delayed FIR and the factum of non-seizure of the weapon of assault have made the prosecution case doubtful. It has also been argued that there is inconsistency in the evidence regarding the weapon of offence. Further submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the medical evidence on record does not substantiate the charge under Section 326 IPC.;