IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that injuries must meet specific legal definitions to constitute grievous hurt, and mere allegations without corroborative evidence are insufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.

The Appeal:-

1. The present appeal has been preferred against a judgment and order dated 30.04.2016 and 02.05.2016, passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Fast Track Court, Kandi, Murshidabad in Sessions Trial No. 07 (05) 2012 (Corresponding to Sessions Serial No. 49 of 2011), thereby convicting the appellant no.1 for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment of 3 (three) years and to pay a fine of 1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month and also convicting the appellants no. 2-4 for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 325/308/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 (seven) years for the commission of the offence punishable under Sections 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 (seven) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 2 (two) months for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 308/34 of the Indian Penal Code with a direction that all the sentences shall run concurrently in respect of appellant no. 2 - 4.

The Prosecution:-

2. The appellants along with three others were placed on trial before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Fast Track Court, Kandi, Murshidabad (hereinafter referred to as the Learned Judge) in Sessions Trial No. 7 (5) 2012 (corresponding to Sessions Serial No. 49 of 2011) to answer charges framed against them for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 149/325/308/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The case was registered for investigation on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Nidhu Saha (hereinafter referred to as the informant), with the Officer-in-Charge of the Salar Police Station. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, Salar Police Station Case No. 94 dated 31.10.2008 was registered for investigation against the appellants and others for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 147/148/149/448/323/324/326/308 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. After completion of investigation, the investigating agency submitted it’s report in the final form, vide Charge Sheet No. 08/09 dated 31.01.09 under Sections 147/148/149/448/323/324/326/308 of the Indian Penal Code, against the appellants herein and four others. After complying with the necessary formalities, the case was committed to the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kandi, Murshidabad. The case was transferred to the file of the Learned Judge, for trial and disposal. The prosecution case as presented to the Learned Trial Court is inter alia to the effect that:-

On 31.10.2008 at about 2 p.m., Gour Ghosh, Subhas Ghosh, Baman Kaibartya, Sanjit Ghosh, Paresh Ghosh, Ramprasad Ghosh and others, attacked the house of the informant, being armed with sticks, iron rod and sharp cutting weapons. Gour Ghosh and Baman Kaibartya assaulted the brother of the informant namely Giridhari with an iron rod and he fell down on the ground. Thereafter, Subhas Ghosh Assaulted Giridhari with =Jhapa Dao‘ (a sharp edged weapon) on his ear and gave out that, they would kill him. It was further alleged that, when the informant tried to resist, he and one of his neighbor namely Motor Hazra, were also attacked by the assailants. Giridhari was shifted to hospital from the place of occurrence for his treatment.

5. On Completion of trial, the Appellant were convicted and sentenced as above.

The Defence:-

6. The defence case is that from the evidence on record it shows that there is a contradictory description of the place of occurrence and also contradictory version of the alleged incident.

7. It is further stated that as the accuseds had filed a prior case against the complainant, there is a good chance of false implication.

8. The accused persons were also not