The duty of the court to assess the evidence, the principles of circumstantial evidence, and the application of relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code were the central legal points established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT

Bibek Chaudhuri, J. - On 28th November, 2016 at about 11 P.M. one Sumita Sahoo, wife of Dharmahari Sahoo was sleeping in her room with her daughter Sipra. At that time the accused namely Sambhu Makar trespassed into the house of Sumita Sahoo and assaulted her with the help of a knife causing sharp cutting bleeding injury on her abdomen, arm and arm-pit. On being assaulted as such she woke up and saw the accused with blood stained knife in his hand. She raised scream which attracted the brother-in-law of Sumita and other neighbouring people. While the brother-in-law of Sumita was approaching towards her house, he saw the accused fleeing away with a knife in his hand. The accused also uttered that he had finished Sumita.

2. The brother-in-law of the injured and other local people took her to a primary health centre. The Medical Officer gave initial treatment to the injured and then referred her to East Medinipur District Hospital at Tamluk.

3. The said brother-in-law of injured Sumita namely Baneshwar Sahoo lodged a written complaint on 29th November, 2016 before the Officer-in-charge, Moyna Police Station. On the basis of which police registered Moyna Police Station Case No. 311 of 2016 under Sections 448/326/307/509 of the Indian Penal Code and took up the case for investigation.

4. The investigation ended with submission of charge sheet. The trial was conducted by the learned Sessions Judge, Purba Medinipur and on completion of trial the accused/appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 326/307/448 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine and default clause for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. He was further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine and default clause for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. The convict has challenged the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Purba Medinipur in Sessions Trial No.2(March), 2017 arising out of Sessions Case No.48(February), 2017.

6. Learned amicus curiae on behalf of the appellant submits that in order to establish the charge against the accused person, prosecution examined eight witnesses. Amongst them P.W.1 is the de facto complainant. P.W.2 is the scribe of the F.I.R. P.W.3 is the injured lady and P.W.4 is the daughter of the injured Sumita Sahoo. P.W.5 is the husband of the injured. P.W.6 Pabitra Kumar Mondal is the Medical Officer attached to Moyna Block Primary Health Centre who medically treated the victim on the very date of occurrence and gave initial treatment to her. P.W.7 is a seizure witness and P.W.8 is the Investigating Officer of this case. Taking me to the F.I.R. it is submitted by the learned amicus curiae on behalf of the appellant that the de facto complainant stated in the FIR as well as in course of his evidence that hearing the scream of the injured lady and subsequently by hearing many people assembled at the place of occurrence. Some of them accompanied the injured and the de facto complainant to hospital on the very night of the occurrence. But the de facto complainant did not disclose the names of the said neighbouring persons who assembled at the place of occurrence immediately after the incident. No independent local villager was examined during trial of the case. All the witnesses are close relatives of the injured. The evidence of the husband of the injured namely Dharmahari Sahoo (P.W.5) is of little importance because his evidence is in the nature of hearsay. Therefore, the learned amicus curiae invites the Court to appreciate the evidence of the witnesses in the light of the fact that they are the close relatives of the injured and obviously interested witnesses. It is also mentioned by him taking me to