Harries, C.J.

[1] This is an appeal from a conviction under Section 307, Penal Code, and a sentence of six years' rigorous imprisonment.

[2] The charge against the appellant was that he on 13th July 1949 had attempted to murder his cousin, Kumud Chandra Patra, P. W. 1. The trial took place before a learned Assistant Sessions Judge sitting with a jury. The jury unanimously returned a verdict of guilty under Section 307, Penal Code, and agreeing with that verdict the learned Assistant Sessions Judge sentenced the appellant as I have indicated.

[3] The facts of the case were comparatively simple. The appellant and the injured man, Kumud, were cousins and apparently were co-sharers in a tank near the village. Alongside this tank ran a roadway or a pathway and it is said on behalf of the prosecution that the appellant claimed the sole right in this approach to the tank. His right was disputed by the injured man and this, it is alleged, led to a quarrel between them sometime before the occurrence. On the day of the occurrence, namely, 13th July 1949 the injured man Kumud was standing at the edge of the water of the tank washing his hands when it is alleged that the appellant came from behind and struck Kumud with a big bhojali causing a severe bleeding injury. Kumud turned round, but the appellant showered further blows on him. Kumud being injured, amongst other places, on his hands as he was endeavouring to ward off the blows. The prosecution states that as many as 17 injuries were caused and Kumud was felled to the ground.

[4] The shouts of the injured man brought a number of persons to the scene and on seeing these persons the appellant, it is said, ran away. In due course information was given to the police and this case was instituted against the appellant.

[5] The defence was that the injured man had been injured by the appellant's wife who had to defend herself against an attempt by Kumud Patra to outrage her modesty or worse.

[6] There were a number of eye-witnesses or people who heard cries and rushed to the scene. These persons appear to have been examined by the police under Section 161, Criminal P.C., but the police had not complied with the mandatory provisions of that section.

[7] Section 161, Criminal P. C., is in these terms :

"(1) Any police officer making an investigation under this chapter or any police officer not below such rank as the Provincial Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf, acting on the requisition of such officer may examine orally any parson supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.

(2) Such person shall be bound to answer all questions relating to such case put to him by such officer, other than questions the answers to which would have a tendency to expose him to a criminal charge or to a penalty or forfeiture.

(3) The police officer may reduce into writing any statement made to him in the course of an examination under this section, and if he does so he shall make a separate record of the statement, of each such person whose statement he records."

[8] An investigating officer is not bound to record the statements of a witness. That seems clear from Sub-section (3) which says that the police officer may reduce into writing any statement made to him. However, the sub-section provides that if he does reduce statements into writing he must make a separate record of the statement of each of the persons whose statements he records. In other words, if a police officer examines a number of witnesses he cannot record a condensed version of the examination of all of them or a precis of what the witnesses are supposed to have said. He must record what each witness says. He cannot for example record that witnesses A, B and C said so and so. Neither can he lawfully do what police officers frequently do, that is, record the statement of A and then add that witnesses B and C corroborate what A says. If he purports to reduce the statements into writin