The court considered discrepancies in the complainant's statement but ultimately relied on the evidence of the witnesses and the nature of the injuries to uphold the conviction.

JUDGMENT

Bibek Chaudhuri, J. - The convicts of Sessions Trial No.8(8) of 2014 arising out of Sessions Case No.22 of 2014 have filed the instant appeal assailing the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Raghunathpur, Purulia for the offence punishable under Section 326/34 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Raghunathpur P.S. Case No.75 of 2013 was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by one Anil Chandra Mondal stating, inter alia, that on the event date at about 8 am when he went to visit his old homestead near Aguibari post office, the appellants namely, Dipak Mondal, Anirban Mondal, Tapas Mondal, Gayeswar Mondal and Thanda Mondal in furtherance of their common intention caused grievous hurt on his person and specifically Dipak Mondal assaulted him on his neck, back and hand with the help of a sharp cutting weapon, called, 'tangi'. After receiving bleeding injury, the defacto complainant was admitted to Raghunathpur Super Specialty Hospital.

3. The aforesaid complaint was written by one Chittaranjan Mondal and specific case was registered against the appellants at about 10:05 am.

4. After investigation police submitted charge-sheet against the accused/appellants. Since the offence under Section 307 of the IPC is exclusively triable by the court of sessions, the learned Sessions Judge after the case being committed, transferred the same to the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge at Raghunathpur for trial and disposal.

5. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 326/34 and Section 307/34 of the IPC when the charge-sheet was read over and explained to them, the accused persons pleaded not guilty. During trial prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses.

6. Amongst the witnesses the injured defacto complainant was examined as PW1. PW2 is the daughter-in-law of PW1. PW3 is the daughter of PW1. PW4 Kanchan Mondal is the uncle of PW1. PW5 is the wife of the nephew of PW1. PW6 is the son of the defacto complainant. PW7 and PW8 are Medical Officers who treated the injured at different point of time after he received injury. PW9 and PW10 are the Investigating Officers who deposed in the trial court. Some documents, viz original written complaint, seizure list, injury report, discharge certificate, formal FIR, sketch map with index of the place of occurrence were marked as exhibits on proof during trial of the case.

7. The accused persons were examined under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. They denied the allegation labeled against them by the defacto complainant. From the trend of cross examination, it is further found that the accused persons took a specific plea to the effect that a long-standing dispute over possession of joint property was going on between Anil Ch. Mondal, the defacto complainant and Dipak Mondal. It was also pleaded by the accused persons while the witnesses on behalf of the prosecution were cross examined that the defacto complainant used to run an illegal business selling liquor from his old house. The villagers protested accused such illegal business of the defacto complainant. Over the said issue a village salishy was held and the terms of settlements were recorded by a general diary entry maintained in the local police station. At the date and time of occurrence the defacto complainant suffered injury after being assailed by his customers who were intoxicated under influence of liquor sold by the defacto complainant.

8. On due consideration of the evidence on record and settlement made by the learned Advocates on behalf of the prosecution and defence, the learned trial judge convicted the accused persons under Section 326/34 and Section 307/34 of the IPC. So far as the offence under Section 326/34 of the IPC, the accused persons were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine and default clause. The appellants were further directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable