Establishing an attempt to murder requires proving the intention or knowledge to cause death coupled with an overt act; the resulting injury is not determinative, as intent is effectively inferred from the weapon type, targeted body parts, and the severity of the assault.

JUDGMENT :

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.

1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 29.11.2007 passed by the Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Khatra, Bankura in Sessions Trial No.8(1)/2006 arising out of Sessions Case No.10(11)/2005 convicting the appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing the appellant to suffer simple imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 year.

2. The prosecution case precisely stated on 27.10.04 at about 06:30 a.m., the complainant i.e., one Goutam Lohar of village Siarbani under Taldangra P.S. agitated his elder brother i.e., Uttam Lohar went to attend nature’s call at a nearby pond, when the appellant assaulted him with “Katari” and “Kurul (axe)” on his head, neck and different body parts for murdering him and instantaneously the victim fell on the ground and collapsed. The complainant and another elder brother i.e., Mangal Lohar rushed to the spot and saw the incident at a distance, while the appellant fled from the spot. His elder brother i.e., Uttam Lohar (the victim) and the wife of the appellant namely Smt. Bhakti Singh had been allegedly in an illicit relationship. Uttam Lohar was fighting for his life in Bishnupur Hospital.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the Police initiated Taldangra P.S. Case No.46/64 dated 27.10.2004 under Sections 307/356 of Indian Penal Code.

4. After completion of investigation, the Police submitted charge-sheet against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited certain documents.

6. The Learned Advocate representing the appellants submitted that the impugned judgment was pronounced without stating the name of the actual offender by whom the victim was assaulted as the evidence on record revealed the name of one Ananda Layek through the deposition of PW-7 the doctor who during his examination-in-chief stated the victim patient to have been conscious and cooperative disclosed the name of Ananda Layek to have been the person who assaulted the victim. The contradiction in the statement of PW-9 the brother of the victim in his examination-in-chief as well as that of one Mangal Lohar being PW-6 were not taken into consideration. The deposition of PW-9 and PW-6 did not corroborate with the narrative of the written complaint marked as Exhibit-1 where both PW-9 and PW-6 projected themselves as self-acclaimed eye witnesses. PW-6 narrated to have been present at the place of occurrence witnessing the complainant to cry contradicting the prosecution case contrary to the deposition of PW-9. Such untrustworthy statements were to be discredited. It was further urged if the victim was continuously assaulted for a period of 5-10 minutes as deposed by PW-9 in his cross-examination, the same should have been noticed by either PW-4 or PW-6 if at all present in the vicinity. The conviction should not have been ideally based on suspicion, surmises and conjectures but real trustworthy evidence devoid of presumptions of any kind. PW-1 deposed in her examination-in-chief with a denial of having seen a ‘katari’ and ‘kural’ however her signature appeared on th