JUDGMENT Joymalya Bagchi, J. - The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.7.2010 and 29.7.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Fast Track Court, Jangipur, Murshidabad in Sessions Trial No.206/June/09 arising out of Sessions Sl. No.05/09 convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months more. 2. Prosecution case, as alleged, against the appellant is to the effect that a matrimonial dispute was pending between him and his wife, Rakhi Singha, the deceased. Maintenance proceeding was instituted by Rakhi against the appellant. Appellant failed and/or neglected to pay maintenance dues and was taken into custody. Out of grudge, in the night between 25/26th July, 2008 while Rakhi was sleeping with her sister Sikha Singha, P.W.1 at the Paikpara residence, the appellant attacked her. Hearing the shouts of her sister, Sikha woke up and found her sister with a deep cut injury on her neck. She saw the appellant running away with a 'batali' (a sharp cutting weapon) in his hand. Sikha chased him but he succeeded to flee away. She sent information about the unfortunate incident to her mother Dulali Singha, P.W.2 through a taxi driver. Dulali and other relations who were residing in a nearby house rushed to the spot. The victim was taken to hospital but was declared dead. On the next day, Sikha lodged written complaint scribed by P.W.9 at the police station resulting in registration of Farraka P.S. Case No.107 of 2008 dated 26.7.2008 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. In the course of investigation, police seized the weapon of offence and other articles. The appellant was arrested. In conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed and charge was framed against the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the course of trial, prosecution examined 13 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. In conclusion of trial, trial judge by impugned judgement and order dated 28.7.2010 and 29.7.2010 convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid. 4. Mr. Sataroop Purkayastha, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant argued that the evidence of P.W.1 is unreliable and does not inspire confidence. In the course of trial, prosecution examined 13 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. In conclusion of trial, trial judge by impugned judgement and order dated 28.7.2010 and 29.7.2010 convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid. 4. Mr. Sataroop Purkayastha, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant argued that the evidence of P.W.1 is unreliable and does not inspire confidence. Taxi driver who informed the other witnesses has not been examined. Name of the appellant did not transpire before the doctor to whom the victim had been taken and was declared dead. There was enmity between the family of the deceased and one Haripada Singha, their paternal uncle. Hence, possibility of murder committed at the behest of Haripada cannot be ruled out. Hence, it is argued that the appellant may be acquitted. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Arun Kumar Maity, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that P.W.1 a natural witness to the incident who woke up and saw the appellant running away from the spot with a batali. Immediately after the incident, first information report was registered and post mortem doctor corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 with regard to the nature of injury caused on the deceased. Weapon of offence was also recovered from the place of occurrence probabilising the prosecution case. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. From the analysis of the evidence on record, it appears that P.W.1, Sikha Singha is the most vital witness in the instant case. She deposed she was sleeping with her sister Rakhi Singha on the fateful night. After dinner they had gone off to sleep around 12.30 a.m. Suddenly, she woke up hearing shouts of her sister and found Rakhi bleeding from her neck. She also noted Ananda, her brother-in-law trying to flee away with a batali. She chased him but he succeeded in escaping. She informed the matter to her mother through a taxi driver. Her mother and other sisters arrived at the spot. The victim was taken to Beniagram Hospital where the doctor declared her dead. On the next morning, she lodged first information report (Ext.1) which was scribed by Arunmoy Das, P.W.9. She further deposed Ananda, her brother-in-law had been taken into custody for non-payment of maintenance dues in connection with a maintenance case. He had threatened to kill his wife, Rakhi if the case was not withdrawn. On the next morning, she lodged first information report (Ext.1) which was scribed by Arunmoy Das, P.W.9. She further deposed Ananda, her brother-in-law had been taken into custody for non-payment of maintenance dues in connection with a maintenance case. He had threatened to kill his wife, Rakhi if the case was not withdrawn. P.W.1 signed on the inquest report (Ext.2) as well as the seizure list relating to blood stained articles and one batali from the place of occurrence, Ext.3. She was extensively cross-examined with regard to a dispute over land between themselves and their uncle Haripada. However, cross-examination of the witness did not dislodge her from her stance that she was present at the place of occurrence when her sister was assaulted on the neck and that she had seen the appellant run away from the place of occurrence. 7. Evidence of P.W.1 is corroborated by her mother P.W.2, Dulali Singha and other sisters, viz., P.W.3, Sanju Singh, P.W.8, Anuradha Singha and P.W.10, Priyanka Singha. 8. These witnesses deposed upon hearing the incident they rushed to the spot and found Rakhi in bleeding condition. She was removed to hospital where she was declared dead. 9. P.W.4, Dr. Sajal Pandit, Medical Officer at Beniagram B.P.H.C. deposed Rakhi was brought to the Health Centre by her mother and others where she was declared dead. 10. P.W.7, Dr. Md. Hamid Ali, post mortem doctor found the following injuries on her person:- "cut injury on the left side of the neck, 1 1/2" X 1"X 3", below the Angle of the mandible, slightly oblique. Depth of the wound 3"upto cervical bone. Cut injury in the neck (left side). Cut injury in the Larynx, blood in the traks. Both the Larynx congested and cut injury in the cardiatic vessels (Lt. Side)." 11. He opined that death was due to hemorrhage, shock and hypoxia and ante-mortem in nature. 12. P.W.13, Manik Lal Dey, is the investigating officer in the instant case. He proved the formal first information report. He went to the hospital at 5.45 a.m. in the morning. He held inquest over the dead body of Rakhi. He visited the place of occurrence, prepared rough sketch map with index, Ext.9. He examined witnesses and seized articles including weapon of offence from place of occurrence. He seized wearing apparels of Rakhi (P.W.12). He went to the hospital at 5.45 a.m. in the morning. He held inquest over the dead body of Rakhi. He visited the place of occurrence, prepared rough sketch map with index, Ext.9. He examined witnesses and seized articles including weapon of offence from place of occurrence. He seized wearing apparels of Rakhi (P.W.12). He handed over the investigation to S.I., Surajit Sadhukhan who sent the seized articles for F.S.L. examination and submitted charge sheet. 13. Evidence of P.W.1 is, therefore, corroborated not only by her relations viz., P.W.3, P.W.8 and P.W.10 who rushed to the place of occurrence soon after the incident but also by P.W.7, post mortem doctor who noted a cut injury on the left side of the neck. Hence, ocular version of P.W.1 appears to find support from the medical evidence with regard to the manner of assault on the deceased resulting in her death. Her version is criticised by the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant on the score there was no light in the room. It is also argued that it is unnatural that P.W.1 did not sustain any injury on her person during the assault. 14. I am unable to accept such contention. P.W.1 has categorically stated in the FIR that light was burning in the room at the time of occurrence. Her presence in the room along with her sister at night is most natural. P.W. 1 woke up upon hearing cries of her sister and saw the appellant running away with a batali. Assault on her sister was, therefore, complete when she woke up and saw the appellant fleeing away. Hence, there was no question of her sustaining any injury on her person in the course of the incident. 15. Faint plea with regard to animosity between the victim's family and their uncle is of little relevance. Motive of the appellant to commit crime has clearly been established. He had been detained for non-payment of maintenance dues and had threatened his wife. Thereafter he came to her residence and assaulted her. 16. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the prosecution case against the appellant is proved beyond reasonable doubt. 17. Conviction and sentence of the appellant are upheld. 18. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. 19. Thereafter he came to her residence and assaulted her. 16. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the prosecution case against the appellant is proved beyond reasonable doubt. 17. Conviction and sentence of the appellant are upheld. 18. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. 19. Period of detention suffered by the appellant during investigation, enquiry, trial and hearing of appeal shall be set off from the substantive sentence imposed upon him in terms of 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 20. Although the appellant had assaulted a helpless lady in her sleep, I note that he does not appear to be a hardened criminal. In the event the appellant makes an application for remission of sentence upon compliance of all formalities in terms of section 432 read with section 433(A) Cr.P.C., the appropriate authority may consider the same in the light of the aforesaid observations and other relevant factors including the conduct of the appellant during incarceration. 21. Copy of the judgment along with L.C.R.s be sent down to the trial court at once. 22. Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities. 23. I agree.