IMPORTANT POINT
Intent to commit murder under Section 307 IPC can be inferred from the nature of the act and the weapon used, regardless of the severity of injuries.

JUDGMENT :

Robin Phukan, J.

Heard Mr. G. Uddin, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No. 1. Also heard Mr. H. A Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 (informant).

2. In this appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) the appellant, namely, Md. Sarej Uddin @ Charej Uddin has challenged the correctness or otherwise of the judgment and order dated 29.09.2023, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bajali, Pathsala in Sessions Case No. 18/2020, arising out of Patacharkuchi P.S. Case No. 513/2020.

3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and order dated 29.09.2023, the learned Sessions Judge, Bajali, Pathsala (‘the trial Court’, for short) has convicted the appellant under Section 307, IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.

4. The background facts leading to filing of the present appeal are adumbrated herein below :

“Smt. Maleka Begum, the daughter of the informant, namely, Md. Gafur Ali of Halongbari village got married with Md. Sarej Uddin about twenty-two years back observing Islamic rites and after the marriage, Sarej Uddin used to subject Maleka Begum to both physical mental cruelty, but, in order to save her marriage, she continued to tolerate the same. But, Sarej Uddin, with the help of Tara Miya, Mohor Ali and Nur Mohammad intensified the torture upon the victim Maleka Begum and in the month of July, 2015, they attempted to kill Maleka Begum by means of a sharp object and the aforesaid case was resolved after negotiation and after some days, again on being instigated by Mozibar Rahman and Moyen Ali, Sarej Uddin started subjecting her to both physical and mental torture. Thereafter, on 30.10.2020 at about 6 p.m., in a planned manner with the help of Tara Miya, Mohor Ali, Nur Mohammad, Mozibar Rahman and Moyen Ali, Sarej Uddin assaulted Maleka Begum over her head, neck, back and hand by means of an Axe and injured her seriously. Thereafter, her family members got her admitted at Salbari Government Hospital and thereafter at Barpeta Medical College and Hospital. Stating, inter alia, amongst others, Md. Gafur Ali/respondent No. 2 lodged one FIR with the In-Charge, Dhumarpathar Police Outpost on 01.11.2020. The In-Charge, Dhumarpathar Police Outpost then recorded a G.D. Entry, being G.D. Entry No. 4 dated 01.11.2020 and forwarded the FIR to the Officer In-Charge, Patacharkuchi P.S. for registering a case. The Officer In-Charge, Patacharkuchi P.S., on receipt of the FIR, registered a case, being Patacharkuchi P.S. Case No. 513/2020, under Sections 498A/326/307, IPC and endorsed ASI Jalal Uddin to investigate the case. The Investigating Officer (‘I.O.’, for short) then visited the place of occurrence, examined the witnesses, prepared a sketch map of the place of the occurrence, got the victim examined by doctor, collected the report, arrested the accused and forwarded him to the Court and then on completion of investigation, the I.O. laid charge-sheet, being charge-sheet No. 293/2020 dated 30.11.2020 against the accused/appellant Md. Sarej Uddin to stand trial in the Court under Sections 498A/324/307, IPC before the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Bajali, Pathsala. Thereafter, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Bajali, Pathsala secured the attendance of the appellant and complied with provisions of Section 207, Cr.P.C. and having found the case under Section 307, IPC, triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Bajali, Pathsala. On appearance of the accused/appellant before Court of learned Sessions Judge, Bajali, Pathsala, the learned Sessions Judge after hearing learned Advocates of both the parties, had framed charge against the accused/appellant under Sections 498A/324/