The reliability of injured witnesses' testimony and medical reports can establish guilt despite inconsistencies and lapses in the investigation.

JUDGMENT :

ANANYA BANDYOPADHYAY, J.

1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 04.09.2001 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Cooch Behar in Sessions Trial No. 4(6) of 2000 arising out of Sessions Case No. 37 of 1991 convicting the appellant under Sections 307/323/324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 year for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and all the sentences will run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case emanated on the basis of a complaint which inter-alia stated that on 15.03.1988 at about 3 P.M. when the complainant was cleaning the courtyard, her younger brother Ranjit attempted to kick her. Her father protested to such an act of her brother and abused him. Her father further told her brother to consider who was elder and who was younger. On hearing that her maternal Uncle Prafulla Barman @ Roy came out and warned them. Thereafter at about 8 P.M. said Prafullya Barman @ Roy came to the house of the complainant and asked her to come out of her room. Thereafter Prafullya assaulted the complainant with an iron rod on her right leg. Prafullya also assaulted her mother with that iron rod on her left hand as well as a knife. At that time her grandfather came to rescue and was assaulted on his leg with rod by Prafullya. Her father tried to flee, but Prafullya eventually caught him and stabbed on his back and belly with a knife. As a result, her father fell on the ground. Other persons came to spot being attracted by hue and cry and they took her father to hospital.

3. On the basis of the said written complaint Dinhata P.S. Case No. 19 dated 15.03.1988 was registered.

4. Investigation progressed and on completion charge-sheet was submitted against the above named appellant/accused person under Sections 307/323/324 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Charges were framed to which the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution cited 11 witnesses and executed certain documents.

6. The Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant submitted that:

(i) The Learned Trial Court ought to have considered that the PW-1 i.e. one of the victims was assaulted by a sharp cutting weapon (though the injury report of PW-1 has not been exhibited) so the offence does not come within the ambit of Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

(ii) To prove a case under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 the victim must be examined by the Medical Officer. However in this case the victims (PW-1 and PW-2) have not been examined by a Medical Officer. So the case under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 does not lie against the above-named appellant/accused person.

(iii) There was a family dispute between the family of the victim and the family of the accused person over the boundary resulting into an altercation and scuffling whereby the victim PW-9 fell on the ground and sustained injury.

(iv) From the deposition of most of the witnesses apart from the victims and the accused person, other villagers assembled at the place of occurrence. However independent witnesses were not examined. The witnesses adduced by the prosecution were closely related to the family of the complainant. Though the Learned Trial Court considered the PW-3 i.e. rickshaw-puller as an independent witness but he was also closely related to the family of the complainant and the deposition of PW-3 revealed him to be a