The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of different sections of IPC, specifically Section 307, Section 326, and Section 448, in determining the appellant's guilt and altering the extent of the sentence.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.

1. In this appeal the judgment of conviction dated January 21, 2004 and the order of sentence dated January 22, 2004 as passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Katwa in connection with Sessions Trial no.78 of 2002 arising out of Sessions Case no. 57 of 1999 arising out of GR Case no. 433 of 1993 in connection with Katwa P.S Case No. 176 of 1993 dated 10.10.1993 has been impugned. By the impugned judgment learned trial court found the appellant guilty under Sections 448/326/307 IPC and thus convicted and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5000/-i.d to suffer further imprisonment for six months for the offence committed by him under Section 307 IPC, imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.5000/-i.d. to suffer further imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 326 IPC. By the impugned judgment learned trial court however, did not pass any separate order of sentence for the offence committed by the convict under Section 448 IPC. However, by the impugned judgment it was directed that all the sentences would run concurrently after setting off the period of detention already undergone. The convict of the said trial felt aggrieved and thus preferred the instant appeal.

2. For effective disposal of the instant appeal the facts leading to initiation of the aforesaid sessions trial is required to be discussed in a nutshell.

3. One Bankim Banerjee of Kacharipara, P.S Katwa, District Burdwan, lodged a written complaint on 10.10.1993 with the Officer-in-Charge of Katwa Police Station stating inter alia, that on the said day at about 7:30 p.m one of his neighbours namely; Khokan Mukherjee, the appellant herein focussed a torch on the window of his house to which his eldest daughter Mala Banerjee raised objection. It was his further version that the present appellant then became furious and started abusing his said daughter with filthy languages to which the informant’s said daughter and wife Janarani Banerjee again raised objection. It has been stated further in the said written complaint that thereafter the present appellant became excited and he rushed to the house of the informant with a ‘Ram Daw’ ( a sharp cutting weapon)in his hand and at that time the wife of the appellant was instigating him. After entering into the house of the informant the present appellant gave a blow of the said sharp cutting weapon on the right hand wrist of his daughter and he also assaulted Smt. Janarani Banerjee, the wife of the informant on her right hand. It is the further version of the informant that after hearing the hue and cry of the two injured persons as referred to above the informant came out of his room and tried to resist the assailant but he failed and thereafter the neighbours of the informant assembled there and after seeing them the assailant made an attempt to flee away by riding an ambassador car bearing no. WB F 4235. The victims were thereafter taken to hospital for their treatment.

4. On the basis of such written complaint Katwa P.S Case no. 176 of 1993 dated 10.10.1993 under Sections 448/326/307/114 IPC was started. Investigation was taken up and on completion of the same charge sheet was submitted under Sections 448/326/307/114 IPC against the present appellant as well as against her wife Smt. Tanushree Mukherjee.

5. Trial court record reveals that the present appellant being one of the accused was explained of the charges under Sections 448/326/307 IPC against him, which he denied and claimed to undergo trial. The prosecution before the trial court examined 10 witnesses in all and they have exhibited various documents and one material. Before the learned trial court defence has adduced no evidence. However, from the trend of cross examination of the prosecution witnesses and the answers as given by the appellant/ accused in his cross examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C it reveals that the defence case is based on clear denial and false