ORDER : S.G. Chattopadhyay, J. 1. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed challenging the judgment dated 12.01.2017 delivered by the Sessions Judge, Unakoti Judicial District, Kailashahar in Criminal. Appeal No. 07(2) of 2016, affirming the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 326, IPC passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Unakoti Judicial District in case No. PRC (WP) 87 of 2015 convicting the petitioner and sentencing him to Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for 5 years and fine of Rs. 3000/- with default stipulation for commission of offence punishable under Section 326, IPC by judgment and order dated 23.05.2016. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: Smt. Laxmi Rani Das wife of Sri Tapan Das of Chandipur, Kailashahar lodged a written complaint with the Officer-in-charge of Kailashahar police station on 09.07.2015 alleging, inter aha, that her father Subhash Das assaulted her mother Smt. Sabita Das with an axe at about 9.30 p.m on 26.06.2015 following a quarrel between them as a result of which her mother received bleeding injury in her head. Immediately, she had taken her injured mother to RGM hospital at Kailashahar from where she was brought to GBP Hospital at Agartala during the same night. 3. Based on her FIR Kailashahar P.S. Case No. 2015 KLS032 dated 09.07.2015 under Section 326 IPC was registered and the case was endorsed to Shri Buddhiram Debbarma, Sub-inspector of Police for investigation. During investigation Shri Buddhiram Debbarma [PW-1], IO of the case, met the material witnesses of the case and recorded their statements after examining them under Section 161 Cr.P.C. His investigation revealed that the petitioner and his wife started quarreling at around 9.30 p.m. on 26.06.2015 and following such quarrel he hit his wife with an axe on her head. As a result, she received deep cut injury on her scalp which was supported by Dr. Sujit Chakma, [PW-4] who stated in his report [Exbt. 5] that the injury was so deep that the brain materials were visible through the injury. The IO had also drawn up hand sketch map of the crime scene with separate index indicating the material locations at the PO and after collection of injury report submitted charge sheet No. 30 of 2015 dated 30.07.2015 against the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Section 326, IPC. 4. The IO had also drawn up hand sketch map of the crime scene with separate index indicating the material locations at the PO and after collection of injury report submitted charge sheet No. 30 of 2015 dated 30.07.2015 against the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Section 326, IPC. 4. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate received the charge sheet and took cognizance of offence punishable under Section 326, IPC. The trial commenced against the accused with framing of charge under Section 326, IPC. The charge framed by the learned trial court reads as under: "That on 26.06.2015 at about 2130 hours at Chandipur upon a quarrel with your wife Smt. Sabita Das you assaulted her on her head by an axe, which is an instrument of cutting voluntarily causing grievous hurt to her person and thereby committed offence punishable u/S. 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and within my cognizance. I do hereby direct that you be tried on the aforesaid charge." The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. 5. During trial as many as 10 prosecution witnesses including the informant, Smt. Laxmi Rani Das [PW-10], her injured mother, Smt. Sabita Das[PW-5], her brother Shri Ramkrishna Das[PW-6], the medical officer, Dr. Sujit Chakma [PW-4] and the Investigating Officer, Shri Buddhiram Debbarma[PW-l] were examined and 5 documents were introduced and marked as Exhibit-1 to Exhibit-5/2. 6. After the recording of prosecution evidence was over, the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C., in short). In reply, the accused pleaded innocence and claimed that the charge was foisted on him. He declined to adduce any evidence on his defence. 7. At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial court on appreciation of evidence held the revision petitioner guilty of offence punishable under Section 326, IPC and convicted him for the offence. After hearing him on the question of sentence, the learned trial court by a separate order dated 23.05.2016 sentenced him to RI for 5 years and fine of Rs. 3000/- with default stipulation. The petitioner challenged his conviction and sentence in appeal before the Sessions Judge of Unakoti Judicial District who by the impugned judgment dated 12.01.2017 upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioner without any modification. Hence this criminal revision petition. 8. Heard Ms. 3000/- with default stipulation. The petitioner challenged his conviction and sentence in appeal before the Sessions Judge of Unakoti Judicial District who by the impugned judgment dated 12.01.2017 upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioner without any modification. Hence this criminal revision petition. 8. Heard Ms. A. Debbarma learned counsel appointed as a legal aid counsel by the High Court Legal Services Committee as well as Mr. Jhon Debbarma, learned advocate for the revision petitioner. Heard Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Addl. PP representing the State respondent. 9. The main contentions of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are as follows: (i) Since the hurt was allegedly caused by the petitioner to his wife [PW-5] following a sudden quarrel between them, charge should have been framed against him under Sections 335, IPC instead of 326, IPC. (ii) The courts below did not take into consideration that the petitioner did not attack his wife with any pre-mediation or intention to hurt her. Rather, the conduct of the wife was so provocative that the petitioner lost his control and hurt his wife. (iii) The courts below did not also appreciate the inconsistencies and infirmities appearing in the prosecution evidence which has rendered their judgments erroneous and unsustainable. Learned counsel, therefore, urges the court for acquitting the accused by setting aside the impugned judgment. 10. Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Addl. PP on the other hand submits that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is so consistent, corroborative and coherent that there is no scope to disbelieve their evidence. Learned counsel submits that the courts below have made an in- depth analysis of the evidence on record and held the petitioner guilty of the offence and rightly convicted and sentenced him. According to Mr. Ghosh learned Addl. PP, the impugned judgment is based on proper appreciation of evidence which does not call for any interference in appeal. Learned counsel, therefore, urges for dismissal of the petition. 11. Among the witnesses examined in this case PW-1 is the IO who has stated at the trial that the statements of the witnesses recorded by him during his investigation and other materials including the injury report collected by him having supported the charge against the accused he submitted charge sheet against him. 12. 11. Among the witnesses examined in this case PW-1 is the IO who has stated at the trial that the statements of the witnesses recorded by him during his investigation and other materials including the injury report collected by him having supported the charge against the accused he submitted charge sheet against him. 12. PW-2, Shri Babul Chandra Das, a neighbor of the petitioner came out of his home following a noise from the house of the petitioner at the material time and came to know from the son of the petitioner that his father assaulted his mother with an axe on her head. He saw the injured wife of the petitioner being taken to hospital. 13. PW-3, Ranendra Das, another neighbour of the petitioner rushed to the house of the petitioner following a hue and cry and saw that Ramkrishna Das, son of the petitioner holding an axe in his hand and his mother was bleeding from her head. Ramkrishna Das, PW-6, told him that his father assaulted his mother with the axe. The injured was then taken to hospital. In his cross-examination the PW stated that he did not see the petitioner at the place of occurrence. 14. Dr. Sujit Chakma [PW-4] examined the injured in RGM hospital at Kailashahar on 26.06.2015 and found the following injuries in her head: During trial he supported injury report [Exbt. 5] prepared by him and stated that the patient was unconscious at that time and at about 11 p.m. on 26.06.2015, she was referred to AGMC and GBP hospital at Agartala. In cross-examination he stated that such injury could have been caused by any other sharp cutting weapon like Dao. 15. PW -5, Smt. Sabita Das, is the injured herself. She stated at the trial that at the material time after she came back from her daughter's house, her petitioner husband gave her a tight slap as a result of which she received severe pain in her head. She somehow came out of her home and informed her son [PW-6] in his nearby shop who advised her to leave for his sister's house nearby. Then she along with her son came back to house to take some clothes when her husband started beating her with a wooden bar. As a result of which she was about to lose her sense. Then she along with her son came back to house to take some clothes when her husband started beating her with a wooden bar. As a result of which she was about to lose her sense. He then took up an axe and gave a blow on her head with the axe which made her lose her sense completely. When she regained her sense she discovered herself in GBP Hospital at Agartala. 16. Son of the petitioner namely Ramkrishna Das [PW-6] gave a detailed account of the incidence which took place before his eyes. He was 17 years old at the time of occurrence. The PW stated that on 26.06.2015 at 9 o'clock in the evening his mother came to him and told him that his father slapped her on her ear as she left the home for a while to visit her daughter nearby leaving the homestead works unfinished. His mother then asked him to take her to the house of his sister. Accordingly, he and his mother came back home for taking some clothes of her. Soon after they entered into their house, his father gave a blow on the head of his mother with an axe. When his father was going to give another blow on his mother, he caught hold of the hand of his father as a result of which, the blow missed his mother. His father then turned towards him. The PW kept holding the hand of his father and raised alarm. Following his cry the people from the adjoining house appeared who had taken his mother to Kailashahar hospital from where she was referred to AGMC and GBP Hospital at Agartala. The PW identified the weapon of offence during the trial of the case. His evidence could not be shaken to any extent in his cross-examination. 17. PW-7, Smt. Rita Das Roy, a neighbor of the petitioner rushed to the place of occurrence from her adjoining house and saw the injured wife of the petitioner and she came to know that the petitioner had given a blow on her head with an axe and caused her injuries. 18. 17. PW-7, Smt. Rita Das Roy, a neighbor of the petitioner rushed to the place of occurrence from her adjoining house and saw the injured wife of the petitioner and she came to know that the petitioner had given a blow on her head with an axe and caused her injuries. 18. PW-8, Smt. Namita Sarkar and PW-9, Sri Sajal Deb were also the neighbours of the petitioner who had seen the injured wife of the petitioner at his house immediately after the occurrence and came to know that she was assaulted by her husband with an axe which resulted in her cut injuries on her scalp. 19. PW-10, Smt. Laxmi Rani Das is the daughter of the petitioner. She has also supported the prosecution case against her father. She categorically stated that her father assaulted her mother with an axe and caused serious injuries in her head. She then, taken her mother to hospital with the help of the neighbours who was first treated in RGM hospital at Kailasahahar from where she was referred to GBP hospital at Agartala. 20. The trial court having appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses particularly that of the eye witnesses and injury report arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution evidence unerringly pointed to the guilt of the accused petitioner for which the petitioner was held guilty and convicted and sentenced for the offence. 21. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge reassessed the entire prosecution evidence and considered the submissions of learned counsel representing the parties and the attending facts and circumstances of the case and came to the conclusion that the act of assault did not result from any grave and sudden provocation. Having appreciated the evidence of the injured wife [PW-5] of the petitioner, the Sessions Judge viewed as under: "12. ........It appears from the evidence of PW 5 that following a quarrel the victim was first given a tight slap to her ear by the convict- appellant. Thereafter, when she came back home with her son after a while, the victim was again assaulted all over her body by the convict appellant by a wooden bar and the convict-appellant did not stop there and he again assaulted the victim with axe on her head. Thereafter, when she came back home with her son after a while, the victim was again assaulted all over her body by the convict appellant by a wooden bar and the convict-appellant did not stop there and he again assaulted the victim with axe on her head. The manner in which the convict- appellant assaulted the victim does not suggest that he assaulted the victim in a sudden rage, but the mindless acts of the convict-appellant suggest that he assaulted the victim wife mercilessly knowing the consequence fully well. Therefore, I find no force in the submission of the learned counsel of the convict-appellant on this score." 22. On an overall appreciation of evidence the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion of the guilt of the petitioner and upheld his conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court without any modification. 23. From the discussions made above, it can be safely held that the impugned judgment is based on proper appreciation of evidence and the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of the evidence recorded at the trial, no conclusion other than the guilt of the accused could be arrived at by the learned trial court as well as by the appellate court. The criminal revision petition, therefore, lacks merit and it is liable to be dismissed. Resultantly, the revision petition stands dismissed. Send down the LCR.