sharp dao to him, his wife and his son. Thereafter, on hearing hue and cry made by them, the village people arrived there and found them in moribund condition and with the help of police, they took the injured to Dhubri Civil Hospital for undergoing treatment. Upon receipt of the said F.I.R., the Officer-In-Charge, Dhubri Police Station registered a case, being Dhubri P.S. Case No. 1437/2021, under Sections 457/427/326/307, and started investigation. During investigation, the I.O. visited the place of occurrence, drawn the sketch map, recorded the statement of the witnesses and also collected the medical report.

4. Thereafter, on completion of investigation, the I.O. laid Charge-Sheet against the present accused/appellant before the learned Sessions Judge, Dhubri on 31.05.2018 under Sections 447/324/326/307 of IPC. Accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge, Dhubri, after considering the materials available on record and also finding prima facie case, framed charge against the present accused/appellant under the aforesaid Sections. The charges were read over and explained to the accused/appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the trial of the case, the prosecution examined as many as 11 (eleven) numbers of witnesses including the I.O. and the Medical Officer. The accused was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge, Dhubri, after hearing the parties and on perusal of the materials available on records, vide judgment & order dated 16.07.2021, in Sessions Case No. 11/2019, convicted the accused/appellant under Sections

326/457 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him, as aforesaid.

6. On being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid impugned judgment and order dated 16.07.2021, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhubri in Sessions Case No. 11/2019, under Sections 457/326/307 of the Indian Penal Code, the present appeal has been preferred by the accused/appellant from jail. 7. Mr. Borthakur, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the learned Trial Court below had failed to appreciate the evidence in its true perspective and thus came to an erroneous finding of guilt of the accused/appellant. The prosecution also failed to establish any motive on the part of the accused/ appellant regarding his alleged house trespass on 05.12.2017, at around 3.00 a.m., in the dwelling house of one Ramesh Ch. Ray causing grievous hurt to him, his wife and his son. He further submitted that as per allegation, the accused used to make telephone calls with the wife of the victim- Ramesh Ch. Ray and his wife, i.e. PW-9, also particularly stated that the accused used to send slang messages to her, but the prosecution did not produce any call records or call details or messages which were allegedly made to the wife of the victim (PW-5) by the present accused/appellant. He further submitted that the victim- Ramesh Ch. Ray (PW-5), in his deposition, stated that the houses of Pradip Ray, Hriday Kr. Shil, Robin Shil, Nural, Jelal are near to his house, but there is no evidence to that effect as to whether the neighbours also saw the incident or came to the house of the victim at the time of alleged incident on hearing hue and cry from the house of the victim. However, the learned Sessions Judge, without making any observation on those prosecution witnesses, had passed the order of conviction, which is not tenable in the eye of law and liable to be set aside and quashed. Further, from the deposition of PW- 8, i.e. the son of victim- Ramesh Ray (PW-5), it is seen that his sister was sleeping with his grandmother, but he could not say as to whether his grandmother saw the incident and the grandmother was also not examined by the prosecution, though it is claimed that the sister of the PW-8 was also sleeping along with his grandmother. Furthermore, as per PW-4, the injured did not disclose the name of the person who attacked them and he deposed that the injured told him th