IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the conviction for grievous hurt and trespass, emphasizing the consistency of witness testimonies and the nature of injuries sustained.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent.

2. Jadumani Sarkar (hereinafter also referred to as the appellant) has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 06.07.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon in Sessions Case No. 74 (BGN)/2012 convicting the appellant under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand) with default clause and convicting and sentencing him under Section 448 IPC to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, with default clause. The period of detention of the appellant was also ordered to be set off with the custodial sentence.

3. Prosecution case in brief is that Sri Pabitra Sarkar (hereinafter also referred to as the informant) lodged an FIR with the police at Bongaigaon Police Station with allegation that his sister-in-law Mamoni Baruah used to stay in his house. On 18.09.2009 at about 8:40 PM, while she was cooking in the kitchen the appellant barged into the kitchen and attacked his sister-in-law from behind with a kukri causing injuries on her person. When she raised alarm, his wife Dalimi Sarkar and the neighbouring people came to the spot and the appellant fled, leaving behind his kukri. His sister-in-law sustained grievous injuries on her head and left finger and she was taken to the Bongaigaon Lower Assam Hospital for treatment.

4. On receipt of the FIR, the Investigating Officer (IO for short) embarked upon the investigation. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid against the appellant. On appearance of the appellant, this case was committed for trial. At the commencement of trial, a formal charge under Section 448/326/307 of IPC was framed and read over and explained to the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty. To substantiate its stance, the prosecution adduced the evidence of eight witnesses and the defence cross examined the witnesses to refute the charges. On the incriminating evidence projected by the prosecution, several questions were asked to the appellant and his answers were evasive in nature.

5. Learned Trial Court delineated the following points to decide this case :-

“Points for determination:

1. Whether the accused person on 18.09.2009 at about 8.40 PM at Barsongaon under Bongaigaon P.S. trespassed into the house of the complainant with an intention to commit an offence and thereby committed an offence U/S 448 IPC?

2. Whether the accused person on the same date, time and place voluntarily caused grievous hurt to Mamani Barua by means of a sharp cutting weapon and thereby committed an offence U/S 326 IPC?

3. Whether the accused person on the same date, time and place did an act with such intention and such circumstances that if by that act the accused had caused the death of Mamani Baruah, he would have been guilty of murder and that thereby caused hurt to said Mamani Baruah and thereby committed an offence U/S 307 IPC?”

6. Now the question that falls for consideration is that whether the learned Trial Court has erroneously convicted the appellant under Section 448/324 of IPC.

7. To decide this case in its proper perspective, it is necessary to re-appreciate the evidence.

8. PW-1 is the informant and he deposed that the incident occurred about three years back i.e. on 18.09.2009 at about 8.30 PM. He was not at home and was returning from Guwahati. At about 9.00 PM, when he reached home, he noticed a gathering in his house. His wife Dalimi Sarkar informed him that at about 8.30 PM, the appellant entered into his house and inflicted injuries on his sister-in-law Mamani Baruah with a dao. He noticed the injuries on her head and left hand finger. Blood was oozing out from her injuries. On being asked, Mamani informed him that while she was cooking in the kitchen, the appellant attacked her from behind with a dao.

9. A