The main legal point established in the judgment is that defects in investigation cannot be the sole ground for rejection of the prosecution case if there is credible, unimpeachable, and trustworthy evidence.

Asha Arora, J

1. These two appeals at the instance of the accused/ appellant have been directed against the judgement and order of conviction and sentence dated 27th August, 2002 and 28th August, 2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, VIIIth Bench, City Sessions Court at Calcutta in Sessions Trial No. 1 of 2001 arising out of Sessions Case No. 41 of 2000 whereby the accused/appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter C.R.A. 599 of 2009 referred to as the I.P.C.) and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of which to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months for the aforesaid offence. Prosecution case, bereft of unnecessary details is as follows :

On 8th December, 1999 at about 15.30 hours one Shankar Mahato of Lakarigola at 4, Garden Reach Road, stabbed Nand Kishore Mahato, brother of the de facto complainant with a dagger. Consequently the victim sustained severe injuries on his abdomen and right elbow joint. He was rushed to the hospital where he was declared dead. On the basis of the statement of the de facto complainant Jaikishan Mahato, recorded by S.I. Prakash Bantawa (P.W.5), South Port P.S. Case No. 401 dated 8th December, 1999 was initiated against the accused/ appellant under section 302 I.P.C. Investigation into the case culminated in the submission of the charge-sheet under section 302 I.P.C. against the accused/appellant.

2. The trial Court framed charge for the offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. against the accused/appellant. Being so arraigned, the accused pleaded not guilty to the indictment and claimed to be tried. During the trial prosecution examined 15 witnesses and exhibited several documents.

3. Defence version in short is innocence and outright denial of the prosecution story.

4. After the conclusion of trial the learned Sessions Judge, VIII Bench, City Sessions Court at Calcutta convicted the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him as aforesaid.

5. The point for determination is whether the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. is sustainable.

6. Castigating the prosecution case on multifarious counts, Mr. Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing as amicus curiae sought to impress upon us that the place of occurrence has not been mentioned anywhere in the F.I.R. (exhibit 1) or in the charge framed against the accused. Referring to exhibit 5 which is the sketch map, learned amicus curiae contended that the place of occurrence is not inside the 'katgola' as testified by the witnesses but on the road. It has also been canvassed that the evidence of the four witnesses namely, P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 sought to be projected as the ocular witnesses cannot be relied upon as none of them were present at the time of the incident. Mr. Bhattacharya urged that P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 being related to the victim are interested witnesses. It has strenuously been argued that the investigation commenced prior to lodging of the F.I.R. as is evident from the testimony of P.W.5 who ought to have held inquest since he took up the investigation initially on the basis of the complaint of P.W.3 Dohra Mahato whose name does not figure in the FIR or in the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W.2, It has further been argued that the weapon of offence was recovered ten days after recording the statement of the accused. Our attention has also been drawn to the fact that the seized weapon of offence was not shown to the autopsy surgeon during his evidence to enable him to opine whether the injuries could be caused by such a weapon.

7. Repudiating the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the State countered that the place of occurrence is the 'katgola' at 4, Garden Reach Road, as is evident from the F.I.R. as well as from the evidence of the witnesses and the sketch map (exhibit 5). Placing reliance upon the