D. P. SENGUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred against the Judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 13. 7. 2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Malda in Sessions Trial no. 6 of 2001 arising out of Sessions Case No. 74 of 1996 thereby convicting the accused appellant under sections 307 and 326 of the indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer R. I. for 10 years for the offence under section 307 and to suffer R. I. for 7 years for the offence under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to suffer further R. I. for 6 months. ( 2 ) PROSECUTION case, in short, was that on 5. 11. 91 at about 3. 00/3. 30 a. M. when victim Arati Ghose came out of her room to attend nature's call, accused Mahabir Ghosh, who happened to be cousin of Arati, caught hold of Arati, tied her mouth by a gamcha and dragged her to the mango garden of one Fakir Chand Mondal. Accused tried to commit rape on Arati by force and on being resisted he assaulted victim Arati with a 'hasua'. When Arati tried to save herself by raising her hand, her left palm was chopped off from her wrist by a hasua blow. Accused even thereafter dealt two more hasua blows on right upper arm of Arati thereby causing grievous injuries on the back of her right shoulder. When Arati tried to escape the accused again inflicted injury by hasua on the left side of her face. Anyhow Arati managed to escape from the hand of the accused, reached in front of their house in injured condition and fell down on the ground. Hearing cry of Arati her mother Kusmi ghosh and others assembled and Arati narrated the incident and the name of her assailant to them. Victim Arati was thereafter shifted to malda Sadar Hospital. ( 3 ) ON completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted and the learned Trial Judge considering the materials placed before him framed charge under sections 326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 4 ) TO bring home the charge against the accused prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses and none was examined on behalf of the defence. ( 4 ) TO bring home the charge against the accused prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses and none was examined on behalf of the defence. Defence of the accused was that he was falsely implicated in the case due to previous enmity. ( 5 ) IN the present case best witness was the injured herself who was examined as P. W. 13 and she had categorically stated in her evidence that on the date and time of incident accused Mahabir Ghosh caught hold of her and took her forcibly to the nearby mango garden of one Fakir mahajan by tieing her mouth by a gamcha. The accused made an attempt to murder her when he became unsuccessful to commit rape on her. By the first hasua blow given by the accused the left palm of the victim (P. W. 13) was chopped off from her wrist. Thereafter by successive blows by hasua the accused caused serious bleeding injuries on the back side of her shoulder and on the left side of her face. After receiving such severe injuries the victim reached in front of her house and before stepping into the courtyard she fell down on the ground. On hearing cry of victim Arati her mother Kushmi Ghosh and other persons came out from their houses and the victim narrated the incident and the name of her assailant to them. Injured Arati was thereafter removed to Mothabari and from there she was taken to Malda sadar Hospital. Before the doctor also she disclosed the name of her assailant. Her statement was also recorded by a Magistrate in the hospital. She also stated in her evidence about a previous incident when she was assaulted by the accused appellant Mahabir Ghosh, his father, uncle and other relatives. P. W. 13 Arati was cross examined at length, but nothing could be brought out in the cross-examination of this witness which might in any way create any doubt at her truthfulness. ( 6 ) P. W. 3 Fekan Chandra Mondal, P. W. 4 Sachin Jadav, P. W. 5 Gagen, p. W. 10 Bishu Ghosh and P. W. 14 Kusmi Ghosh (mother of the victim)were the witnesses who assembled in front of Arati's house hearing arati's cry and they heard about the incident from victim Arati. P. Ws. 3,. ( 6 ) P. W. 3 Fekan Chandra Mondal, P. W. 4 Sachin Jadav, P. W. 5 Gagen, p. W. 10 Bishu Ghosh and P. W. 14 Kusmi Ghosh (mother of the victim)were the witnesses who assembled in front of Arati's house hearing arati's cry and they heard about the incident from victim Arati. P. Ws. 3,. 4, 5 and 10 were also amongst those persons who removed injured arati to hospital. ( 7 ) P. WS. 1 and 2 were declared hostile. But P. W. 1 partly supported the prosecution case in so far it relates to the seizure of amputated palm of Arati, blood stained earth, one chadar, silver necklace and one piece of earning by the investigating officer of the case. ( 8 ) P. W. 6 Dr. M. A. Mabood was the medical officer of Malda Sadar hospital. On 5. 11. 91 he examined victim Arati, who was found to be conscious. Victim Arati disclosed the name of her assailant to the doctor (P. W. 6 ). On examination this witness found the following injuries : 1. Incised wound on the mandaval aspect of the left forearm measuring 5 x 3" x 1". 2. Incised wound on the left side of the face measuring 9" x 2"/3" in depth cutting through the let! lower jaw bone transversely. 3. Incised wound over the right shoulder measuring 2" x 1" cutting head of the right humerous bone which was fresh in nature. 4. The antero medical aspect of the right arm 3" age of all wounds was within 6 hours caused by sharp cutting weapon. Nature -grievous. ( 9 ) P. W. 7 Dr. Pannalal Sikdar attended Arati in the Emergency Ward of the hospital and got her admitted in the Female Surgical Ward. On examination P. W. 7 also found following injuries : 1. Sharp cut on the left side of the face about 6" x bone deep x 1". 2. Left hand amputated. 3. Sharp cut on the back of right shoulder. ( 10 ) P. W. 8 was the Record Keeper of Malda Sadar Hospital, who produced Bed-head Ticket and connecting medical papers of Arati Ghosh to the investigating officer. P. W. 9 was a formal witness, who drew up formal FIR. P. W. 10 was the cousin of victim Arati. 3. Sharp cut on the back of right shoulder. ( 10 ) P. W. 8 was the Record Keeper of Malda Sadar Hospital, who produced Bed-head Ticket and connecting medical papers of Arati Ghosh to the investigating officer. P. W. 9 was a formal witness, who drew up formal FIR. P. W. 10 was the cousin of victim Arati. At the time of incident he was sleeping in his room and hearing the cry of Arati he came out of his room and found Arati in injured condition and left palm of Arati was chopped off from her wrist. On being interrogated by them Aran told that she was injured by accussed Mahabir. This witness gathered other people to make necessary arrangement for taking Arati to hospital. P. W. 11 was the investigating officer who submitted charge sheet. P. W. 12 Protima Dutta was the staff nurse of Malda Sadar hospital and she stated that oil 5. 11. 91 injured Arati was admitted in the hospital, where she made a statement that she was injured by accused mahabir when she went out of her house at night to attend nature's call. Statement of the injured Arati was recorded by the Executive magistrate. P. W. 14 was the mother of victim Arati and she corroborated other post occurrence witness, who assembled near the house after hearing the cry of victim Arati. P. W. 15 Dr. Biman Basu examined Arati to ascertain if the victim was subjected to any sexual offence or not. His opinion in that regard was negative. P. W. 16 was one of the investigating officers, who seized bed-head ticket of Arati from the district Hospital. P. W. 17 was the main investigating officer of the case. ( 11 ) THE learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the present case is a case of false implication. There was previous enmity, as it appears from the FIR and evidence on record, and as such possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. It is argued by the learned Advocate that from the evidence of P. W. 6 it appears that he examined the victim at 7. 15 A. M. and as such it was not possible for the leaned magistrate to record the statement of victim Arati at 7. It is argued by the learned Advocate that from the evidence of P. W. 6 it appears that he examined the victim at 7. 15 A. M. and as such it was not possible for the leaned magistrate to record the statement of victim Arati at 7. 00 A. M. But we do not find any merit in such submission as it appears from the evidence of P. W. 7, the doctor who examined the victim first in the emergency Ward of the hospital, that victim Arati was brought to the hospital at 6. 35 A. M. So there was sufficient time to ask for the service of the learned magistrate for recording the statement of the victim. Argument of the learned Advocate of the appellant that after receiving such severe bodily injury the victim was not in a position to give any statement, also does not appeal to us. From the evidence of P. Ws 6 and 12, the doctor and staff nurse of Malda Sadar Hospital it becomes clear that victim Arati, when she was taken to hospital was very much conscious. P. W. 6 Dr. M. A. Maboqd made requisition for recording dying statement by the learned magistrate. P. W. 12, the staff nurse also stated in her evidence that the patient was conscious and her statement was recorded in her presence. Victim Arati also disclosed the name of her assailant and the history of assault to the doctor (P. W. 6 ). The learned advocate further argues that the scribe of the FIR. namely Fekon Mondal was not examined by the police and the contents of the FIR was not read over and explained to P. W. 14. the informant. But we do not find any merit in such submission. P. W. 14 in her evidence stated that fekon Master (P. W. 3) wrote down the FIR as per her narration of the incident and she put her L. T. I, in the complaint and handed over the same to the police. ( 12 ) THE learned Advocate of the State submits that the conviction is mainly based on the evidence of P. W. 13, the injured victim herself, corroborated by other witnesses as also the medical evidence. ( 12 ) THE learned Advocate of the State submits that the conviction is mainly based on the evidence of P. W. 13, the injured victim herself, corroborated by other witnesses as also the medical evidence. The victim Arati (P. W. 13) lost her left palm by such assault and there was no reason to believe that the victim would falsely implicate the present appellant falsely leaving aside the actual culprit. Medical evidence also fits in with the ocular version of the witnesses. According to the learned advocate of the State the impugned Judgment and order of conviction does not suffer from any infirmity and the present appeal having no merit is liable to be dismissed. ( 13 ) WE have heard the learned Advocates of the respective parties. We have also scrutinized the entire evidence on record. In the present case conviction is mainly based on the evidence of P. W. 13 (injured victim) corroborated by other witnesses including medical evidence. As it appears from the evidence on record P. Ws. 3, 4. 5, 10 and 14 are the witnesses who assembled in front of the house of victim Arati immediately after the incident and Arati narrated the incident and name of her assailant to those witnesses. After the victim was taken to the hospital she was examined by P. W. 7 first and thereafter by P. W. 6. Victim Arati also disclosed the history of her assault and disclosed the name of accused Mahabir as her assailant to the doctor (P. W. 6 ). P. W. 12, the staff nurse also stated in her evidence that victim made a statement before the learned magistrate, who recorded the same in her presence. P. W. 12 further stated that the patient disclosed the name of accused mahabir as her assailant. From the nature of injuries inflicted and the manner in which those injuries were caused, it becomes clear that such act was done by accused Mahabir Ghosh with the intention of causing death of victim Arati. ( 14 ) AFTER considering the entire evidence on record we are of the view that there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P. W. 13, the injured victim. We find that the witnesses were cross examined at length and nothing infirm was elicited to cast even a slightest doubt on their veracity. ( 14 ) AFTER considering the entire evidence on record we are of the view that there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P. W. 13, the injured victim. We find that the witnesses were cross examined at length and nothing infirm was elicited to cast even a slightest doubt on their veracity. It should not be lost sight of that there was no reason as to why the said witnesses would falsely implicate the appellant leaving aside the actual culprit. There was no suggestion even of any motive for such false implication. The totality of the evidence of witnesses, specially the evidence of injured victim coupled with the medical evidence, makes it clear and sufficient to hold that accused committed the offence in the manner and at the place as alleged by the prosecution. ( 15 ) AFTER appreciating the evidence on record, we entirely agree with the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court. But we find that the learned trial Judge having convicted the accused for the offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of an attempt to commit murder of victim Arati erred in convicting him for the offence under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code for causing grievous injuries to the victim. The offence under section 326 is a minor offence in relation to that under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and it is trite that where the Court convicts an accused for a major offence, it should not again convict him for a minor offence. Accordingly we affirm the order of conviction under section 307 IPC by which the accused was sentenced to R. I. for 10 years and we set aside the order of conviction and sentence under section 326 IPC. In this regard, reference may be made to a judgment of Orissa High Court reported in 1975 Criminal Law Journal 1933 (Brajabandhu Naik and Ors. v. State ). In the said Judgment, it was held that where there is only one injured and the injuries had been inflicted in course of same transaction, the simpler offence gets merged in the graver one. v. State ). In the said Judgment, it was held that where there is only one injured and the injuries had been inflicted in course of same transaction, the simpler offence gets merged in the graver one. In such circumstances, it was held in the said case that the charge should have been only under section 307/34 ipc as the same covers section 326/34 and there should not have been an independent charge much less a conviction under both the counts. The order of conviction is modified to the extent as indicated above. The accused appellant, who is in jail custody, will serve out the remaining period of sentence. A copy of this Judgment along with the L. C. R. may be sent down to the Court below immediately. Appeal allowed in part