JUDGMENT Shivakant Prasad, J. - The appellant has assailed the judgment of conviction dated 27.08.2014 and order of sentence dated 28.08.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, 7th Court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas in Sessions Trial Case No.3(8)/2005 [Sessions Case No.45(5)/2005] wherein he was convicted of the charge under Section 307 IPC and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year. However, appellant and other accused persons were acquitted of the charges. 2. The appellant along with other accused persons were put to trial before the Trial Court for the charges under Section 498A and 307 of the IPC and to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses. After the evidence was concluded, the appellant and other accused persons were examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. to which each of them declined to adduce defence witness. 3. But being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment, the appellant has preferred this appeal, inter alia, on the grounds that the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses and the materials placed on record do not support the charge and the accused/appellant was entitled to acquittal thereof. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the appellant that vital witnesses being the post occurrence witnesses were not cited and examined by the prosecution and the adjudication of the matter went through the doll and drum situation affecting the veracity of the proceeding. 5. It is argued that the learned Judge has overlooked the issues by not taking into consideration the fact that the weapon used for commission of offence despite being seized were not exhibited before the trial Court rather substituted weapon, i.e., knife with butt was produced and have been identified by the investigating officer when especially the actual weapon used for the offence. In this context, my attention is invited to the seizure list, Ext.1, which shows that one knife with broken butt was seized. I am of the considered view that the investigating officer, has testified the fact having seized a knife measuring 4", one blood stained handkerchief and one biscuit colour ladies bag under a seizure list during investigation which he proved as Mat Ext. (i), (iii) and (ii) respectively. I am of the considered view that the investigating officer, has testified the fact having seized a knife measuring 4", one blood stained handkerchief and one biscuit colour ladies bag under a seizure list during investigation which he proved as Mat Ext. (i), (iii) and (ii) respectively. Therefore, it cannot be said that the offending weapon was not seized by the Investigating Officer or that the weapon has been replaced by the knife with the broken butt. There appears a minor contradiction in its detail in my opinion which does not go to the root of the prosecution case inasmuch as the oral testimony of the victim lady, PW 6 finds corroboration by the medical evidence deposed by PW 7, and their testimony are in general agreement as to the injury suffered by the victim, PW 6. 6. The victim lady has clearly stated on oath that she was married to the appellant-accused and their marriage was out of courtship when her husband was working as a tailor and she resided with her husband in a rented house at Bangipur. Admittedly, she was married to the appellant about 23 years prior to the date of occurrence and they were blessed with two sons who are now grown up. She has admitted that she was residing in joint mess with her husband, her mother-in-law, her husband's sister, her two children and the two brothers of her husband but she was not happy in the family of her husband as she had to reside in the covered verandah of the house and other members of the family used to reside inside the house and somehow she used to manage in the small space, which compelled her to stay at her father's house who looked after her and her mother used to bear expenses for her sons, but it was not possible for her mother, anymore to bear the expenses for the education of her two sons. The mother of the victim had expressed her inability to bear the expenses for her children's education but could only bear the expenses of their living and food. This crisis led her to opt for a job at Shimpukur Lane. 7. The mother of the victim had expressed her inability to bear the expenses for her children's education but could only bear the expenses of their living and food. This crisis led her to opt for a job at Shimpukur Lane. 7. On the fateful day, i.e., on 5th day of her joining of her job, when she was going for work at about 8/8.30 a.m. in the morning, her husband met her at a lane of Mirapara and slapped her on her face and inflicted bleeding injuries on her neck, waist and stomach by means of a knife. She requested one auto to take her to the Commissioner's house but due to drowsiness as she was severely bleeding, she did not realize where she was taken, but when she regained her consciousness, she found herself at Budge Budge Hospital, wherefrom she was referred for better treatment at Bangur Hospital where she was admitted for about 5 days. 8. On the date of the deposition of her mother, PW1, victim was residing with her mother along with her sons and during the pendency of the case, her husband had approached her mother that he would keep her and two sons peacefully. According to evidence of her mother, the appellant was residing together with the victim lady and for that, PW1 deposed that her son-in-law with her daughter and children were living peacefully. But thereafter the accused/appellant did not change his behaviour towards his wife and was not putting up with his wife and sons. 9. On critical examination of the evidence, I do not find reasons to disbelieve the oral testimony of the victim lady. Her evidence with regard to injury inflicted on her by her husband is well corroborated by the evidence of Dr. Ashim Chakraborty, PW 7, who was attached to M. R. Bangur Hospital as a Surgeon on 14.05.2004 and the victim, who was referred from the Budge Budge Hospital to M. R. Bangur Hospital, was examined and on examination, he found one sharp cutting injury on the right side of her neck, one incised wound at left hypochondrium of abdomen, one incised wound in the middle of the back. The said victim remained admitted at M. R. Bangur Hospital from 14.05.2004 to 19.05.2004, and this fact is well evident from the bed head ticket consisting of 4 pages, marked as Ext.2 collectively. The said victim remained admitted at M. R. Bangur Hospital from 14.05.2004 to 19.05.2004, and this fact is well evident from the bed head ticket consisting of 4 pages, marked as Ext.2 collectively. Doctor has opined that the said injuries were sufficient to cause death of the patient if not treated in time. Admittedly, the measurement of the injuries regarding its length, depth and breadth was not noted and those injuries were inflicted by sharp cutting weapon. It was also observed that the length, depth and breadth would be there even if it is caused due to some other reasons but that by itself does not go to shake the prosecution case rather evidence of victim lady and the doctor are in general agreement and trustworthy infrinsically. 10. My attention is also invited to the evidence of prosecution witness no. 8, namely, Atibur Rahaman, the Investigating Officer who has proved the formal first information report Exhibit-3. He deposed that he visited Budge Budge Municipal Hospital wherefrom he seized a knife measuring four inches, one blood stained handkerchief and one biscuit colour lady's purse under a seizure list being Exhibit-1. He proved the seizure list and also identified the signatures of the witnesses to the seizure list, namely, Basir Ahmed Mir and Manirul Jammal Mir. 11. Though there are some minor contradictions or departure in the statements of the witnesses, but the fact remains that the ocular testimony of the injured, stands corroborated by the medical evidence and her evidence cannot be discredited on any count though prosecution witnesses no. 3, 4 and 5 have not supported the prosecution case but had witnessed the incident of assault on the victim. Their evidences corroborate the prosecution case that an incident of assault on a woman took place on the date of occurrence which lead to a judicial inference that the lady was assaulted by her husband and nobody else. 12. The learned judge while considering the evidence of the investigating officer, being prosecution witness no. 8, has come to understand that there may be fault on the part of the investigating officer, but the evidence of the victim that she was assaulted is not doubtful. It has been pointed out that the victim lady has not been examined by the investigating officer and admittedly she was in the hospital for five days. 8, has come to understand that there may be fault on the part of the investigating officer, but the evidence of the victim that she was assaulted is not doubtful. It has been pointed out that the victim lady has not been examined by the investigating officer and admittedly she was in the hospital for five days. The victim lady had deposed that after discharge from the hospital, she was interrogated by the Investigating Officer. 13. The victim being the first eye witness of an assault, it is significant to note that reliance can be placed on her evidence alone. The relevance and significance of an injured witness was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions such as, Abdul Sajeed -Vs- State of Madhya Pradesh, 2010 10 SCC 259 ; Kalidas and Ors. -Vs- State of Maharashtra, 2011 1 SCC 793 ; Durbal -Vs State of Uttar Pradesh, 2011 2 SCC 676 ; and State of M.P. -Vs- Naresh & Ors., 2011 4 SCC 324 . It is well settled principle of law that testimony of an injured witness must be accorded a special status as such a witness comes with a builtin guarantee of his presence at the scene of crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone and unless there are grounds to reject evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies. Therefore, ocular testimony of an injured witness must be given due credence being the first eyewitness at the scene of occurrence. 14. In this context, the learned advocate for the appellant submits that the injury as inflicted would reveal that it may be grievous in nature but such injury cannot be an offence within the meaning of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code because there is no intention to kill or attempt to murder. Though there is multiple injury on the body of the victim, being three injuries as stated above, but those were conservatively managed by the doctor and the injured was hospitalized for sustaining such injuries only for five days. As such, the injury inflicted on the victim can be considered as grievous. Since inflicting of injury was not intentional and it may be due to the provocation or other circumstances and falls short of offence of alleged murder rather, a case of grievous hurt under Section 325 IPC. 15. As such, the injury inflicted on the victim can be considered as grievous. Since inflicting of injury was not intentional and it may be due to the provocation or other circumstances and falls short of offence of alleged murder rather, a case of grievous hurt under Section 325 IPC. 15. Reliance is placed on a decision in the case of Jai Narain Mishra & ors. vs. State of Bihar, 1972 AIR(SC) 1764 to argue that the case in hand squarely falls within the mischief of Section 325 IPC and submits to alter the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant. It would be apt to reproduce the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court for profitable understanding which reads thus: "Taking the case of appellant Suraj Mishra, we find that he has been convicted under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment. According to the evidence Suraj was responsible for the chest injury which is described by Dr. Mishra P.W. 6 as a penetrating would 11/2" x 1/2 x chest wall deep (wound not probed) on the side of the right side of the chest. Margins were clean out. Suraj, according to the evidence, had thrust a bhala into the chest when Shyamdutt had fallen as a result of the blow given by Mandeo with the Farsa on his head. According to the Doctor the wound in the chest was of a grievous nature as the patient developed surgical emphysema on the right side of the chest. There was profuse bleeding and, according to the Medical Officer the condition of the patient at the time of the admission was low and serious and the injury was dangerous to life. Out of the four injuries which the Medical officer noted, this injury was of a grievous nature while the other three injuries were simple in nature. Where four or five persons attack a man with deadly weapons it may well be presumed that the intention is to cause death. In the present case however, three injuries are of simple nature though deadly weapons were used and the fourth injury caused by Suraj, though endangering life could not be deemed to be an injury which would have necessarily caused death but for timely medical aid. In the present case however, three injuries are of simple nature though deadly weapons were used and the fourth injury caused by Suraj, though endangering life could not be deemed to be an injury which would have necessarily caused death but for timely medical aid. The benefit of doubt must, therefore, be given to Suraj with regard to the injury intended to be caused and, in our opinion, the offence is not one under Section 307 IPC but Section 326 IPC is set aside and we convict him under Section 326 IPC. His sentence of 5 years rigorous imprisonment will have to be reduced accordingly to 3 years rigorous imprisonment." 16. In consideration of the medical evidence and the period of hospitalization of the victim lady for treatment given in conservative manner by the doctor and critically examining the human psychology of the victim lady who was putting up with her husband appellant despite having received grievous hurt inflicted on her, I am of the opinion , it is quite absurd and beyond logical acceptance that a victim would reside with her husband who stabbed her to cause death, and the victim, despite nurturing repugnance and abhorrence stayed happily with the appellant. 17. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Jamiludin Nasir vs. State of West Bengal, 2014 3 SCC(Cri) 230 that sentencing is a delicate task requiring an interdisciplinary approach and calls for special skills and talents. A proper sentence is the amalgam of many factors, such as, the nature of offence, circumstances - extenuating or aggravating - of the offence, prior criminal record of the offender, age and background of the offender with reference to education, home life, sobriety, social adjustment, emotional and mental condition, the prospects for his rehabilitation, etc. 18. The accused/appellant who is now serving out sentence for the charge under Section 307 IPC has received the remission of 256 days up to December, 2019 towards UT set off from 21.05.2004 to 22.06.2004 and his probable release date is on 9th December, 2020 if the fine is paid, and on 9th December, 2021, if the fine is not paid, as per the report of the Superintendent, Presidency Correctional Home. Thus, the accused/appellant has substantially served the sentence for about 6 years. 19. Thus, the accused/appellant has substantially served the sentence for about 6 years. 19. Now, considering the nature of the injury inflicted on the victim and taking a cue from the observations made in the above cited decision this court is of the view that the grievous injury inflicted on the victim lady comes within the purview of Section 325 and not under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, ergo, the conviction under Section 307 IPC is set aside holding the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 325 IPC and, therefore, I am of the considered view that since the appellant has served out sentence for more than six years, sentence is modified to the period already undergone by the appellant. 20. Accordingly, the terms of sentence is modified to the period of sentence already undergone by the appellant. 21. With the above modification, the appeal is allowed in part. 22. Let a copy of the judgment along with the lower court records be sent down to the trial court at once for necessary note in the Sessions Trial Register and for along the needful. 23. An extract of this order be sent to the Superintendent Presidency Correctional Home for information and necessary action. 24. Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, will be made available to the applicant within a week from the date of putting in the requisites.