JUDGMENT & ORDER (N. Chaudhury, J.) The prosecution story as made out in the charge-sheet is that on 03.07.2011 an ejahar was lodged with Lahoal Police Station by one Kaleswar Majhi stating that he had married his daughter Surabhi Majhi to one Lalit Majhi about nine years ago. They had a seven years old daughter. As Lalit assaulted Surabhi, she came to her paternal house along with the minor daughter named Keshwati Majhi but on 26.06.2011 accused Lalit came to take his daughter and the wife. The informant asked him to stay overnight and went out to call the village headman. At around 7.00 a.m. when the informant was not present at home, the accused took a dagger like sharp weapon and stabbed Surabhi as well as Keshwati causing fatal injuries. Then he tried to commit suicide by stabbing himself. On receipt of information police came and sent all the injured in police vehicle to Assam Medical College Hospital at Dibrugarh. In course of treatment minor Keshwati died. Accordingly, Lahoal P.S. Case No.96/2011 under Section 326/302 IPC was registered against the accused person. In course of investigation the I.O. visited the place of occurrence, examined witnesses and finding sufficient materials against the accused/appellant submitted charge-sheet accusing him of offence under Section 326/302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh, by his order dated 15.02.2012 committed the case to the Court of Sessions and thereupon the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh, framed two charges against the accused person under Sections 326 and 302 IPC. On being explained the charges, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. In course of trial prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 10 documents. Upon consideration of the aforesaid materials including the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the learned Sessions Judge by his judgment and order dated 21.06.2013 convicted the accused under Sections 326/302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs.2000/- in all, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months more on both counts. In fact, the accused was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 326 IPC along with a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. This judgment and order has been called in question in the present appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. 4. We have heard Mr. U. J. Saikia, learned Amicus Curiae, for the appellant and Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State. We have perused the lower Court records including the depositions of witnesses and the exhibits proved in the case. 5. PW 1 is informant Kaleswar Majhi. He is not an eye-witness. According to him, his daughter told him that accused had inflicted stab injuries on her over her right and left hypocondrium and pubic area and also stabbed her daughter Keshwati at the abdomen. The accused thereafter attempted to commit suicide and he also sustained injury. Keshwati succumbed due to the injuries sustained whereas the accused and Surabhi, the wife of the accused survived. 6. PW 2 is Surabhi Majhi. She stated that on the fateful day she was staying at her paternal house along with her daughter when the accused came to take her back. As there was quarrel between them she had come to her paternal house. She refused to go with her husband, the accused herein. At around 7.00 p.m. when her father was not at home she went outside to urinate and her daughter was sleeping. At that time the accused held her from behind and stabbed with a knife. She immediately fled to her father and came back with him only to find that accused had stabbed her minor daughter in the meantime who was lying on the ground and he himself was lying injured. In course of her cross-examination she disclosed that after her marriage there used to be quarrels with the accused and each time she had come to stay at her paternal house, the accused used to come and take her back. This time also there was a village ‘mel’ and she was advised to go with the accused. She did not want to go any more. This time also there was a village ‘mel’ and she was advised to go with the accused. She did not want to go any more. At that stage a suggestion was given to her that since the accused was insisting for taking her back she became angry and attacked the accused and that in the scuffle both of them sustained injuries and even the minor daughter who came in between was also seriously injured. She stoutly denied the suggestion given to her. 7. PW 3, Smti. Taramani Majhi, stated that at about 8.00 p.m. on the fateful night she heard hue and cry at the place of occurrence and Surabhi was going in a run. Then Keshwati came to her house in an injured state. She came to the place of occurrence and found the accused lying injured. Her husband went to bring a vehicle. In the meantime police came and took the injured to hospital. Keshwati died in the hospital. On the following day police came and seized the knife. Material Ext-1 is the seized knife. 8. PW 4, Smti. Mina Ganju, stated that on the day of occurrence the accused came to Surabhi’s house. She heard hue and cry in the house including that of a child. Following day she learnt that accused had assaulted Surabhi and the minor daughter and they had sustained injuries. The child died in the hospital. According to her, she received this information from Suknath, the son of Kaleswar. 9. PW 5, Sri Deben Ganju, stated that his children told him about the incident in the house of Kaleswar. He heard that the minor daughter had died. He also heard that accused assaulted Surabhi but he did not see anything himself. 10. PW 6, Dr. R. K. Gogoi, proved the injuries on the dead body of Keshwati. He found the following injuries:- “1. A stab wound of size 3 cm x 1cm x abdominal cavity deep present over left side of abdomen 10 cm below the nipples sterum and 1 cm above the umbilicus and 1 cm from midline. Underneath intestine (middle part of gegonum and mesentery are perforated at places. The margin of the wound are small with upper angle blunt and lower angle sharp. 2. One stab wound of size 3 cm x 1.5cm x abdominal cavity deep present on left side of abdomen 1 cm above injury no.1. Underneath intestine (middle part of gegonum and mesentery are perforated at places. The margin of the wound are small with upper angle blunt and lower angle sharp. 2. One stab wound of size 3 cm x 1.5cm x abdominal cavity deep present on left side of abdomen 1 cm above injury no.1. The margin of the wounds are smooth with upper angle blunted and lower angle sharp. 3. A stab wound of size 1cm x 0.5cm abdominal cavity deep present over right side of abdomen 6 cm below the right nipple and 7 cm from midline. The margins of wound are with upper angle blunted and lower angle sharp. Underneath right lobe of the liver is punctured of size 4cm x 1cm. Examination of cranium and spinal canal –All were healthy. Examination of thorax – All thoracic organs were healthy. Examination of abdomen – Wall, Peritoneum – Injury as described. Small intestine as described. Liver – Injury as described. Other thoracic organs were found healthy.” He proved the post mortem report as Ext-4 and opined that death was due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of the injuries. All the injuries were ante mortem and caused by pointed tip sharp cutting weapon and homicidal in nature. 11. PW 7, Baburam Bhuyan, stated that on the morning of the following day of occurrence he came to know about the assault done by accused. Surabhi’s daughter died but he did not know as to how Surabhi’s daughter died and who had killed her. 12. PW 8, Haren Tassa, deposed that on the day of occurrence he came to his house in the evening hours. Surabhi is his sister-in-law. After having tea he and the accused went to the house of their father-in-law together. At that time Surabhi and her daughter were there. After sometime he left the accused there and came back home. But after he had proceeded a little distance his brother-in-law Lengu came and informed that accused had killed Surabhi and his daughter. Immediately he rushed to the hospital along with Lengu and came to know that police took Surabhi, the accused and their daughter to Police Station. Later the girl died. 13. PW 9, Tarun Majhi, denied of any information as to who has caused the death of the child. He is an inquest witness. Inquest report is Ext-5 and Ext-5(3) is his signature. 14. PW 10, Dr. Later the girl died. 13. PW 9, Tarun Majhi, denied of any information as to who has caused the death of the child. He is an inquest witness. Inquest report is Ext-5 and Ext-5(3) is his signature. 14. PW 10, Dr. Uttam Konwar, certified the injuries on the person of Surabhi and accused Lalit Majhi. He found the following injuries on the person of Surabhi :- “1. Penetrating injury 3cm x 1cm over right hypocondrium. 2. Penetrating injury 3cm x 1cm over the left hypocondrium. 3. Penetrating injury 2cm x 1cm over the pubic area and left upto the pubic bone. On exploration on 26.8.11 two perforations were found on the transverse colon and one perforation was found on jejunum (part of small intestine).” According to the PW 10, the accused Lalit Majhi had also sustained following three injuries :- “1. Penetrating injury in the right hypocondrium measuring 2cm x 1cm. 2. Penetrating injury in the epigastric region 2cm x 1cm with omentum (fatty tissue) seen coming out of the penetrating injury no.2. 3. Penetrating injury in the left hypocondrium measuring 2cm x 1cm.” In regard to the injuries sustained by Lalit Majhi he could not ascertain as to whether those injuries were self sustained or not. 15. PW 11, Kamini Sinha, is a retired police officer. He stated that at the time of occurrence he was A.S.I. in Barbari Police Outpost. Having received a complaint from the A.M.C. Outpost that one Keshwati Majhi, 7 years old, has been assaulted by sharp weapon and admitted in paid surgery ward wherein she died on 27.06.2011. He issued the challan of the dead body. Ext-6 is the dead body challan and Ext-5 is the inquest report. 16. PW 12, Ram Rautia, S.I. of Lahoal Police Station, deposed as the Investigating Officer. He gave the detailed description as to how the charge-sheet was filed. Ext-10 is the charge-sheet. 17. The learned trial Court thereafter examined accused Lalit Majhi under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In course of his examination the accused denied of any knowledge as to how his daughter has died and as to how Surabhi has sustained injuries. Having considered these materials on record the learned trial Court has convicted the accused under Sections 326/302 IPC and after having given him opportunity of hearing awarded the sentence as aforesaid. 18. Having considered these materials on record the learned trial Court has convicted the accused under Sections 326/302 IPC and after having given him opportunity of hearing awarded the sentence as aforesaid. 18. It is to be noted from the above that Surabhi (PW 2)) is the eyewitness to the occurrence. She sustained injuries on her person. There are as many as three injuries and these injuries have been corroborated by medical evidence. Keshwati is the 7 years old minor daughter of PW 2. As many as three injuries were inflicted on her abdomen causing her death. In course of cross-examination of PW 2 the accused wanted to establish that there was a scuffle between PW 2 and the accused as PW 2 had assaulted the accused with knife. Since Keshwati came in between the scuffle she sustained injuries. PW 2 stoutly denied the suggestion but upon such trend of cross-examination it became clear that Keshwati sustained injury because of some incident wherein accused was the party. But since Keshwati sustained as many as three injuries it is not probable that such injuries were caused as she came in between the scuffling couple. She being a minor daughter she would have distanced herself once she found that there was a scuffle between her parents with knife in hand. Rather, presence of three injuries on her abdomen is suggestive of the fact that the injuries were inflicted with definite intention to put an end to her life. The impression of the accused about his wife PW 2 has come out in course of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he made an allegation that he has quarrelled with his wife because she had fled away with a boy from her matrimonial house. Such statement made by the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. gives an indication that he had bad blood with his wife. The moment he suggested that there was scuffle in between he and his wife, whoever might have initiated it, it becomes automatically established that he did not deny his involvement in it. His wife sustained injuries and this shows that Material Ext-1 might have come to his hand at certain stage at least and so the prosecution story that he inflicted injuries on his daughter who was present in the house and then inflicted injuries on himself for committing suicide cannot be ruled out. His wife sustained injuries and this shows that Material Ext-1 might have come to his hand at certain stage at least and so the prosecution story that he inflicted injuries on his daughter who was present in the house and then inflicted injuries on himself for committing suicide cannot be ruled out. PW 2 stated that on being injured by her husband she ran out of the house and came to her father. She and her father returned only to find that both Keshwati and accused were lying injured. During this intervening period only Keshwati and the accused were present in the house and so accused was duty bound to explain as to how Keshwati sustained injuries. The PW 2 was specific in her evidence that at that time Keshwati was sleeping in bed when the accused had inflicted injuries on her. All these facts established that having found the child alone accused inflicted injuries on her abdomen three times to ensure that she dies and then made an attempt to commit suicide. However, his injuries were not serious and he survived. PW 2 also survived but the unfortunate child could not. Having noticed such facts involving death of a minor child in the hand of her father it is not possible to take a different view other than the one taken by the learned Sessions Judge. 19. The appeal is devoid of any merit. It is accordingly dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant stands upheld. Send down the records.