JUDGMENT MUKHERJEE, J. 1. THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Burdwan in Sessions Trial No. 16 of 1992 corresponding to Sessions Case No. 330 of 1990 sentencing the appellant to suffer R.I. for 10 years under Section 307 I.P.C. and to suffer R.I. for one year under Section 451 I.P.C. 2. THE prosecution case, in short, is that one Kalyani Biswas lodged complaint with O.C. Ketugram P.S. alleging that on 8th Agrahayan, 1392 at about 8.00 p.m. she and her sister Kanika Biswas were lying in the first floor after dinner. Chandi Majhi was in the ground floor. At about 10.00 p.m. her sister Kanika Biswas came downstairs to attend nature's call. Sometime thereafter Kanika raised alarm and on hearing her shouts, the informant came downstairs with light and found that Chandi Majhi also woke up. She found that Kanika was lying in the courtyard with bleeding injuries and Subhas Sardar with a knife in his hand was going away after opening the main door of the house. When Subhas was intercepted he showed the knife and threatened them. Kalyani was assaulted in his left ribs and hand. On being asked Kanika disclosed that when she came to the courtyard to attend the nature's call, Subhas caught hold of her and gave her ill-proposal. As Kanika did not agree, Subhas stabbed her with knife. On hearing the hue and cry, the neighbours namely, Gayanath Pal, Nampada Biswas, Kinkar Majhi, Sadhucharan Majhi and others assembled there. Kartick Chandra Pandit, the member of the Panchayat was called there. He advised that the injured Kanika should be sent to Ketugram Hospital. Accordingly, Kanika was admitted in the said hospital. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted. The charge was framed under Sections 457, 326 and, in the alternative, under Section 307 I.PC. 3. THE learned Trial Judge upon consideration of the materials-on-record convicted the accused and passed the sentence as stated above holding that the minor discrepancy, anomalies and non- examination of some witnesses did not affect the prosecution case. THE learned Judge held that the injured girl and her elder sister and the neighbouring villagers were the truthful witnesses and their reliability was beyond any doubt. It was held that the two persons Jaladhar Sarkar and Kartick Pandit were merely hearsay witnesses. THE learned Judge held that the injured girl and her elder sister and the neighbouring villagers were the truthful witnesses and their reliability was beyond any doubt. It was held that the two persons Jaladhar Sarkar and Kartick Pandit were merely hearsay witnesses. THE learned Judge held that the accused inflicted the injuries repeatedly upon Kanika with the intention to commit murder. 4. Mr. Milon Mukherjee, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that from the standpoint of probability it cannot be said that the appellant waited outside knowing that the injured Kanika would come down at about 10.00 p.m. to attend nature's call. Mr. Mukherjee has taken us through the evidence of the P.Ws and submits that there are improbabilities and inconsistencies in the prosecution case. As regards the treatment of the injured at Katwa Hospital, Mr. Mukherjee submits that the injury report of Katwa Hospital was not seized by the I.O. and the doctor of Katwa Hospital was also not examined. As regards the treatment of the injured at Ketugram Hospital, Mr. Mukherjee submits that the bed head ticket was not produced and the doctor could not opine whether the injury was simple or grievous. Mr. Mukherjee submits that Chandi Majhi who, allegedly, came downstairs with torchlight was not examined and the quack who, allegedly, treated the injured at the initial stage and administered medicine, was also not examined. 5. Mr. Mukherjee submits that from the evidence of the P.Ws it would appear that the injured was suffering from Tuberculosis and used to vomit blood. Mr. Mukherjee submits that the source of identification was the torchlight which has not been seized by the I.O. 6. Mr. Tapan Dutta Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the State submits that the evidence of P.W. 2 and the evidence of doctor (P.W. 7) is very vital in this case. Mr. Dutta Gupta contends that according to injured, the injuries were inflicted in the left side which was corroborated by the doctor. Mr. Dutta Gupta contends that the injured (P.W. 2) has stated that she remained admitted in the hospital for about 15/16 days. Mr. Dutta Gupta contends that this long detention in the hospital clearly shows the intention to commit murder. Mr. Dutta Gupta contends that the evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 7, if taken together, would be sufficient to prove the charges against the appellant. Mr. Dutta Gupta contends that this long detention in the hospital clearly shows the intention to commit murder. Mr. Dutta Gupta contends that the evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 7, if taken together, would be sufficient to prove the charges against the appellant. P.W. 1, Kalyani Biswas, has stated that on 8th Agrahayan, 1392 B.S. about 61/2 years ago during night her sister Kanika Biswas (P.W. - 2) went out of the house to attend nature's call and she raised alarm; on hearing her shouts she (P.W. - 1) came out of the house with a lantern and found that her sister was lying with bleeding injuries on her left side in 3/4 places; she also found accused Subhas standing with a knife in his hand and he tried to escape; she tried to resist him, but, he threatened her on the point of knife; she raised alarm and on hearing the same Nampada Biswas, Gayanath Pal and Kinkar Majhi and others came there. 7. P.W. 2, the injured Kanika Biswas, has stated that on 8th Agrahayan, 1392 B.S. at about 10.30 p.m. she came to the courtyard to attend nature's call; while she was attending nature's call, accused Subhas Sardar appeared there and proposed for sexual enjoyment which she refused; at this Subhas caught hold of her and struck her with a knife causing bleeding injuries on the left arm, left side of chest and left wrist; she raised hue and cry when Chandi Majhi with a torchlight and her elder sister Kalyani with a lantern came to her. From the cross- examination of P.W. 1 it would appear that neither the lantern nor the torchlight was seized by the police. 8. P.W. 1 in her cross-examination stated that they had no previous enmity or grudge against the accused; they had no visiting terms to the house of Subhas; they had no occasion to talk to Subhas. P.W. 2, the injured, in her cross-examination stated that she had no talking terms with Subhas. It is in the evidence of P.W. 2 that after she finished her nature's call, Subhas came to her and had talk with her for about five minutes. She volunteered to say that accused gave her bad proposal during daytime also. P.W. 2, the injured, in her cross-examination stated that she had no talking terms with Subhas. It is in the evidence of P.W. 2 that after she finished her nature's call, Subhas came to her and had talk with her for about five minutes. She volunteered to say that accused gave her bad proposal during daytime also. This evidence of P.W. 2 that after she finished her nature's call the accused came there and had talk with her for five minutes and that accused gave her bad proposal during day time also, being contradicted by P.W. 1, is also different from the prosecution case as set-forth in the F.I.R. It is in the evidence of P.W. 2, the injured, that at times she had bleeding from mouth due to Tuberculosis infection and in the night of occurrence also when she came down to the courtyard she had bleeding with cough. 9. P.W. 3 Gayanath Pal is the scribe of the complaint. He has stated that Kanika was lying and groaning; Kanika has also reported in a feeble voice that Subhas Sardar entered into the courtyard through the opening of the western boundary wall and caught hold of her and declared that he would kill her and saying this he stabbed her in some places. 10. P.W. 4 Nampada Biswas has stated that he came out of his house and rushed to the house of P.W. 1 and found Kanika lying on the courtyard with bleeding injuries in her left ribs; both Kanika and Kalyani reported that Subhas Sardar injured her with a knife and fled away. P.W. 5 Kinkar Majhi has stated that both Kanika and Kalyani reported that Subhas Sardar injured Kanika with a knife. The I.O. P.W. 8 has stated that P.W. 3 Gayanath Pal did not state to him that Kanika told him in her feeble voice that accused Subhas entered their house and injured her on 3/4 places with the help of knife. The I.O. has further stated that P.W. 3 did not state that Kalyani and Chandi Majhi came to the rescue of Kanika when they were threatened by the accused on the point of knife. It is also in the evidence of I.O. that P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 did not state to him that accused Subhas had injured Kanika. The I.O. has further stated that P.W. 3 did not state that Kalyani and Chandi Majhi came to the rescue of Kanika when they were threatened by the accused on the point of knife. It is also in the evidence of I.O. that P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 did not state to him that accused Subhas had injured Kanika. It is, therefore, clear that the narration of the incident by P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 to other witnesses was introduced for the first time at the time of trial. It was not stated to the I.O. at the earlier opportunity and, as such, the evidence regarding narration of the incident to other witnesses made for the first time at the time of trial, loses its importance. 11. THE I.O. P.W. 8 has stated that he did not seize any lantern and torchlight in connection with this case and he did not seize the bed head ticket or the injury report of the victim girl from the Ketugram Hospital, nor did he examine the doctor of that hospital; he did not send the seized alamat to FSL for examination. It is in the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 that the injured was shifted to Katwa Hospital. But, no paper regarding the treatment of the injured at Ketugram Hospital is forthcoming. P.W. 2 has stated that she remained at Katwa Hospital for 15/16 days and P.W. 1 has stated that the injured remained there for one month. The non-production of any medical report from Katwa Hospital goes to show that the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 in this regard is unfounded. 12. IT is in the evidence of P.W. 3 that Jaladhar Sarkar, a quack was called to attend the injured Kanika and he came there and gave her 2/3 tablets. IT appears that Jaladhar Sarkar, said to be a quack, was the first person to attend such injuries on the person of P.W. 2 and it is also clear that he gave her 2/3 tablets. The non-examination of Jaladhar Sarkar creates doubt regarding the veracity of the prosecution case. Kartick Chandra Pandit, the member of the Panchayat who allegedly came there and advised shifting of Kanika to the Katwa Hospital has also not been examined. The non-examination of Jaladhar Sarkar creates doubt regarding the veracity of the prosecution case. Kartick Chandra Pandit, the member of the Panchayat who allegedly came there and advised shifting of Kanika to the Katwa Hospital has also not been examined. Another significant aspect in the case is that it is not in consonance with probability that the accused waited outside the house of the informant till the P.W. 2 came downstairs to attend the nature's call in the courtyard at about 10.30 p.m. 13. THE doctor P.W. 7 has stated that he examined anika Biswas and found incised wound in her left side. He has stated that depth of the wound could not be ascertained and the opinion as to the injury could not be given. He has referred the patient to Katwa Sub-Divisional Hospital. He has also stated that the patient was suffering from chest infection in both the lungs as crepitation was found in both the lungs and she was advised to undergo thorough treatment. He has further stated that the direction of the injuries was not mentioned in his report and he did not note the nature of the injury whether simple or grievous. It is also in his evidence that such type of injuries could be caused by fall on broken pieces of glass if protruding upwards with their sharp edges. It is worth mentioning here that no injury report has been exhibited in this case. 14. HAVING regard to the materials-on-record and after giving anxious consideration to the submission of the learned Counsel for the parties we are of the considered view that the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 does not inspire confidence and there are serious contradictions and improbabilities in the prosecution case. We are of the considered view that the learned Trial Judge was not justified in passing the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. We set aside the impugned judgment. The appellant is found not guilty of the charges levelled against him. The appellant is acquitted of the charges. The appeal is allowed. 15. LET a copy of this judgment along with Lower Court records be sent down to the learned Court below immediately.