The appellate court upheld the conviction under Section 326 IPC for grievous injury, affirming the credibility of the victim's testimony and its alignment with medical evidence.

JUDGMENT :

CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgement and order passed on May 18, 2016 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. (Fast Track court) in session trial case no. 38/March/2013, under Section 341/326/307 of the Indian Penal Code, whereby the applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the and sentenced him to suffer, regardless imprisonment for seven years for the offence committed under of the with a fine of Rs. 3000 in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under of the.

Fact of the case

2. The prosecution case was launched on the strength of a complaint lodged by one Tushar Kanti Bakshi before the O.C. Beta Police Station on August 19, 2012, alleging that on August 18, 2012, his son Sandeep Bakshi get down at Garhbeta station and from there proceeding towards R.S transport and then at about 10.45 A.M. approximately, in front of Kangsabati gate, under the leadership and instigation of Raju Dhori, the accused Sudam Bhowmik suddenly strike on the running motorcycle with the help of a large weapon. As a result, his son sustained wounds, measuring 20’’ deep cut mark in the lower abdomen and also sustained injury in pancreas. They again tried to stab his son when he fell down from motorcycle and he tried to protect himself with his hand and also sustained cut mark injury between palm and middle portion and the thumb of right hand received deep cut. He further strike near the armpit as a result, sustained 4 inch deep wound mark and it cut through the chest bone. It was further the case of the prosecution that said Sandeep Bakshi was assaulted for four times with an intention to kill him and at the intervention of the truck owners Association, his life was saved as he was taken to Garbeta Gramin Hospital and the complainant was informed. The injured was referred to Medinipur Hospital and six hours surgery took place. Seven bottles of blood was transfused and he was advised to keep in ventilation and to take to Kolkata from there. The victim was further admitted at Ekbalpur nursing home and at the time of lodging the complaint, he was struggling for life.

3. Over the said complaint, Garhbeta police case no. 329 of 2012 dated August 19, 2012, under Section 341/326/307/34 IPC started. On completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and the content was read over and explain to him to which he pleaded, not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence the trial commenced.

Submissions

4. The learned advocate submitted the written notes of argument and raised the point that the prosecution withheld best evidence to the circumstances without any explanation. In view of the allegations levelled in the F.I.R as well as depositions adduced by the witnesses there are several other eyewitnesses and important witnesses, whom the prosecution withheld without any explanation. The ambulance driver as well as the persons accompanied the victim were not examined. No person of the locality who resides in the vicinity of the place of occurrence as alleged was not examined. In this regard relied upon the decision of Godadhar Chandra vs. State of West Bengal,  (2022) 6 SCC 576 and Pawan Kumar vs. State of Haryana,  (2003) 11 SCC 241.

5. It is further argued that no Reliance can be placed on the depositions of P.W.-6, 7 and 9 because of inherent anomalies is attached to their depositions. The effects which dislodged the veracity of the said prosecution witnesses are as follows:

a) Version of PW 6