JUDGMENT :

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.) :

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 27.04.2022 and 28.04.2022 passed by the Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court (1st), Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur in Sessions Trial No.06/15 arising out of Sessions Case No.823/14 wherein the learned trial court was pleased to convict the appellant under Sections 448/326/307 of IPC and sentenced her as follows:

(1) Simple imprisonment for 3 months and fine of Rs.1,000/- i.d. to suffer further imprisonment for 1 month for offence punishable under Section 448 IPC.

(2) Simple imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs.2,000/- i.d. to suffer further imprisonment for 6 months for offence punishable under Section 326 IPC.

(3) Simple imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs.2,000/- i.d. to suffer further imprisonment for 6 months for offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. By the same order learned trial court was pleased to observe that all the sentence was run concurrently.

2. The genesis of the case was on the basis of a complaint lodged by Nirmal Roy with the Officer-in-Charge, Hemtabad Police Station, Uttar Dinajpur where he alleged that on 04.04.2023 his wife Minati Roy was discussing with the accused about the money which she owed and the accused Bisakha Majumder assured her that she would come to her house with the money. His wife returned home and on that day at around 12 noon the accused planned not to return the money and came to his house with a cleaver (daw) secretly covering with saree and at the time of discussing about the said money the accused took out the daw and assaulted on her neck with an intention to kill her. When his wife tried to save herself the accused continuously assaulted her on different parts of the body and while screaming she fell down on the ground. Hearing such hue and cry a neighbour viz Banosree Biswas rushed to the spot and the accused thereafter ran away with the cleaver (daw). At that time the complainant was not present at home and neighbouring people took his wife to Kaliaganj Hospital where doctor examined her and immediately referred to Raiganj District Hospital. His wife is under medical treatment at Raiganj District Hospital and is struggling with her life. The complainant further stated that he is working in a private firm at Guwahati and that is why there is delay in informing the incident.

3. On the basis of such information being sent to the Officer-in-Charge, Hemtabad Police Station Case No.55/13 dated 06.04.2013 under Sections 447/324/326/307 IPC was registered for investigation. On conclusion of investigation the investigating officer submitted charge-sheet under Sections 447/326/307 IPC against the sole accused/appellant. The case was thereafter committed to the court of sessions and finally it was transferred before learned trial court on or about 10.12.2014. Learned trial court was pleased to frame charges under Sections 448/324/326/307 IPC. The contents of charge were read over to the accused which was not narrated and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution in order to prove its case relied upon 9 witnesses being PW-1, Nirmal Roy, the complainant and the husband of the injured; PW-2, Minati Roy, the injured; PW-3, Dhiren Barman, a co-villager; PW-4, Tapan Biswas, a co-villager; PW-5, Rabin Mondal, a co-villager; PW-6, Prasanta Biswas, a co-villager; PW-7, Abdul Jabbor, ASI of Police in Hemtabad Police Station; PW-8, Krishnendu Das, Officer-in-Charge of Hemtabad Police Station; PW-9, Dr. Somnath Chatterjee.

5. In order to prove its case the prosecution also relied upon 8 documents which included the written complaint, a seizure-list, formal FIR, rough sketch map of the place of occurrence along with index, bed head tickets etc. However, the defence did not produce any witness and only relied upon the evidence which was adduced by the prosecution particularly the cross-examination and the facts on which prosecution witne