JUDGMENT :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. The appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated December 20, 2019 and the order of sentence dated December 21, 2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Bankura in Sessions Trial no. 05 (05) 18 arising out of Sessions Case no. 109/2018.

2. By the impugned judgment of conviction, the learned Judge convicted the appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. By the impugned order of sentence, the learned Judge imposed a sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/-and, in default, further simple imprisonment of six months.

3. The case of the prosecution at the trial was that, the appellant entered into the house of the victim, assaulted her with a sharp cutting weapon on her throat and, thereby, attempted to murder the victim on January 23, 2018 at about 14.00 hours.

4. The police received a written complaint. On the basis of the written complaint, a First Information Report was registered being Saltora Police Station F.I.R no. 03 of 2018 dated January 24, 2018 under Sections 448/341/354/326/307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. On completion of the investigations, police submitted a charge sheet being Charge Sheet no. 14 of 2018 dated March 21, 2018 under Sections 448/341/354/326/307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as against the appellant. The Court framed charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the appellant on May 19, 2018. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. The appellant claimed to be tried.

5. At the trial, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses. Prosecution also relied upon various documentary and material evidences. On conclusion of the evidence of the prosecution, the appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code when he claimed to be innocent and falsely implicated.

6. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the written complaint was not tendered in evidence and marked as exhibit. He submits that, no Forensic Science Laboratory report was produced at the trial. Blood strain earth was not duly established. He submits that, there was shifting of the place of occurrence.

7. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, there were contradiction between the testimonies of prosecution witness nos. 1 and 6. According to prosecution witness no. 6, the victim was sleeping in a room when the incident occurred while, the victim claimed in her evidence as P.W. 6 that, she was feeding her child.

8. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the seizure list witnesses turned hostile. Therefore, according to him, seized articles were not established at the trial. Referring to the deposition of the prosecution witnesses, he submits that, there was actually no eye-witness to the incident apart from P.W.6, who is the victim. The claim of P.W.3, that he was an eye-witness to the incident was disbelieved by the learned trial Judge. According to him, P.W.3 was correctly disbelieved by the learned trial Judge as an eye-witness.

9. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the charge framed as against the appellant was defective. He refers to the contents of the charge and submits that, the charge sheet claims that in furtherance of common intention, the appellant inflicted the injury on the victim. No other person was arrayed as an accused either at the stage of the investigation or during trial for the element of common intention to come into operation. In support of his contention he relies upon 21(1982) Delhi Law Times, 127 [Dal Chand @ Dalia vs. The State].

10. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the offending weapon was not adequately proved at the trial. He refers to the deposition of P.W.-3. He submits that, the nature of injury suffered does not sustain a case of attempt to murder. In support of such contention, he relies upon AIR 1976 SC 2423 [Ishwar Singh vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh], 198