1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.08.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC No. 2, Kamrup, in Sessions Case No. 362(K)/2005. By the said judgment, learned Addl. Sessions Judge convicted the accused appellant under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-with default stipulation.

2. Prosecution case, as reflected in the FIR was that the appellant along with another unknown person and his elder sister conspired to kill the husband of the informant, Sri Tarini Charan Das. On 19.05.2003 at about 9.10 Am, when the husband of the informant, Tarini Charan Das was making a phone call in a PCO located at Bharat Complex, Maligaon Chariali, the accused appellant Manoj Das accompanied with another person came there and kicked him from backside, consequently he fell down on the ground. Thereafter the accused appellant, Manoj Das stabbed him on various part of his body with the intention to kill him and after causing injuries, the accused/ appellant left the place. Immediately after the occurrence, the Officer-in-charge of Jalukbari Police Station brought him to Railway hospital for treatment. An FIR was lodged by PW-2, the wife of the injured, on the basis of which, police registered a case and after usual investigation, submitted charge sheet against the accused/appellant under Section 324/307 IPC.

3. The offence under Section 307 IPC being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions.

4. In course of trial, charges under Section 324/307 IPC were framed against the accused/appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty. Six witnesses were examined by the prosecution to establish the charge and on completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC, wherein he pleaded innocence and examined two witnesses in support of his defence. On appreciation of evidence, learned Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 307 IPC and awarded sentence as indicated above.

5. Aggrieved by conviction and sentence, the accused/appellant, has preferred the instant appeal.

6. Learned counsel Mr. Z. Kamar, assisted by Mr. B.M. Choudhury, learned counsel advanced argument on behalf of the appellant and the State was represented by the learned Addl. P.P. Ms. S. Jahan.

7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also the evidence and materials brought on record.

8. There was no eye witness except the injured himself and learned Trial Court essentially relying on the sole testimony of the alleged injured (PW-4) and the medical evidence, recorded the conviction under Section 307 IPC.

9. The first point urged by the learned counsel for the appellant was that on the facts of the case, no conviction under Section 307 IPC was warranted. Further contention of the learned counsel was that the oral testimony of the sole witness, was totally unreliable and on that count also, the conviction and sentence of the accused appellant deserves to be interfered.

10. Before adverting to the first submission of the learned counsel as to whether the conviction under Section 307 IPC was warranted, it is desirable to scrutinize the evidence brought on record.

11. PW-4, the alleged injured deposed that on 09.05.2003, at about 9 to 9.15, he went to a PCO at Maligaon to make a phone call. At that time, PW-3, the employee, who was working in the PCO, was in the toilet. While he was making a call over the phone, the appellant kicked him on his neck from backside and consequently he fell down and thereafter the accused stabbed him on his head. The second and third blows given by the knife/dagger fell on his right and left hand respectively, while he tried to ward off the attack and ultimately the accused stabbed on his chest. When the accused stabbed him on the chest, the PW-3 arrived there. During cross examination, it was elicited that