1. Appellant, Sentu Ram has been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 341 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one month, Under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year, Under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for three years, Under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years as well as to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo RI for one year, additionally, under Section 354 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for two years, under Section 452 IPC and sentence to undergo RI for 7 years as well as to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default thereof, to undergo RI for one year additionally with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently vide judgment of conviction dated 08.07.2005 and order of sentence dated 14.07.2015 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Supaul in Sessions Trial No. 255/2012.

2. PW-5, Baby Devi while being admitted at Sadar Hospital, Supaul on 24.08.2012 at about 7.30 AM had recorded her Fard-e-beyan to the effect that she has been married about six months ago with Sintu Sah son of Ravi Sah of Village-Lal Ganj, PSKishanpur, Distt-Supaul. She was, for the present, staying at her Naihar. In between night of 23/24.05.2012 she after taking meal was sleeping at her Naihar. All of a sudden, at about 2.00 AM, her co-villager, Sentu Ram made house trespass, as a result of which she woke up. She protested whereupon, Sentu Ram gave indiscriminate knife blows causing injury over her forehead, hand, thigh. He ran therefrom on an alarm raised by her. It has also been disclosed that an earlier occasion also Sentu had disclosed to her that in case, she will marry at a different place, then in that event, she will be murdered. On hue and cry raised by her, her parents came and then has lifted her to Sadar Hospital, Supaul where she was being treated.

3. After registration of Pipra PS Case No. 139/2012 investigation commenced and concluded by way of submission of charge-sheet facilitating the trial, meeting with ultimate result, subject matter of instant appeal.

4. Defence case as is evident from the mode of cross-examination as well as statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C is that of complete denial. It has also been suggested that at the instance of Parmeshwari Sah (PW 3) this case has falsely been instituted against him. However, neither ocular nor documentary evidence has been adduced in defence.

5. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution had examined altogether 7 PWs out of whom PW-1, Indu Devi, PW-2, Bimla Devi, PW-3 Parmeshwari Sah, PW-4, Gopal Sah, PW-5, Baby Devi, PW-6, Amit Kumar and PW-7, Dr. Vijay Kumar. Side by side had also exhibited Ext-1, Fard-e-beyan, Ext-2 Formal FIR, Ext-3 Injury report. As stated above, neither ocular nor documentary evidence have been adduced in defence.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence, has submitted that prosecution utterly failed to substantiate its case and on account thereof, the judgment impugned is found not at all supported by the materials available on the record. In order to justify his submission, learned counsel has urged that no independent witness has been examined. Whosoever has been examined are the informant as well as her own family members in spite of the fact that during cross-examination, all the witnesses have shown presence of so many independent witnesses and further, no explanation has been adduced at the end of the prosecution over their non examination.

7. It has also been submitted that there happens to be material development in the evidence of the informant PW-5, during course of trial and that makes her evidence suspicious. In the aforesaid background, It has also been submitted that presence of PW-1, Indu Devi has purposely been introduced and the material development visualizing in the evidence of PW-1 is found duly corroborated from the evidence of the Investigating Officer, PW-6. It has also been s