Point of Law: Evidence of sole testimony of an injured person is sufficient to bring home charges of grievous hurt.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Ms. B Sarma, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant Jibon Newar and Mr. D Das, learned Addl. PP, appearing for the State of Assam.

2. The appellant Jibon Newar (hereinafter referred to as appellant) has preferred an appeal from the District Jail, Goalpara against the judgment and order dated 15.05.2019 passed by the learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Goalpara in connection with Sessions Case No.109/2017 convicting the appellant under Section 307 IPC and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 (seven) years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-with default stipulation. He was further convicted under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 (seven) years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-with default stipulation. The sentences are to run concurrently.

3. The genesis of the case was that on 12.04.2017 at about 6.30 pm, an altercation erupted between the appellant and his wife Niru Kumari Newar (hereinafter referred to as the victim), and then the appellant struck a blow with a dao (machete) inflicting cuts on the ear and neck of the victim. Her hand was almost severed off by the blow. The appellant also assaulted his sons and daughters. The victim was knocked unconscious by the impact of the injuries and blood oozed out from her injuries. She was taken to Simlitola Primary Health Centre and thereafter she was referred to G.M.C.H, at Guwahati as the injuries were grievous in nature.

4. The FIR was lodged by Tukuna Newar (hereinafter the informant) and Rongjuli PS Case No.47/2017 was registered under section 341/326/307 IPC. The investigating officer (I.O in short) embarked upon the investigation and on closure of investigation submitted charge sheet against the appellant. At the commencement of trial, a formal charge under section 341/326/307 IPC was framed and read over and explained to the appellant who, abjured his guilt and claimed innocence. To substantiate its stance, the prosecution adduced the evidence of 11 witnesses including the IO and Medical Officer (M.O for short), whereas the defence did not tender any evidence. On the incriminating circumstances arising against him, several questions were asked to the appellant and his responses were recorded. The trial Court decided the case on the following points:

“7. (1) Whether the accused Jibon Newar on 12.04.2017 at about 6.30 pm at village Simlitola under Rongjuli P.S., District Goalpara (Assam), voluntarily caused grievous hurt to Niru Kumari Newar by means of a dao which is an instrument of cutting as alleged, and thereby committed offence punishable under section 326 IPC?

(2) Whether the accused person at the aforesaid relevant time and place did an act, namely causing grievous hurt to Niru Kumari Newar with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances by that act had caused death of Niru Kumari Newar, he would have been guilty of murder and thereby committed an offence punishment under section 307 of IPC?”

5. The learned counsel for the appellant laid stress in her argument that the prosecution witnesses are related to the victim. When questions were asked to the appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C., to the question No.28 the appellant answered that at the time of the incident his wife was inebriated and quarrelled with him and when he retorted, she brought out a dao and then she fell down and sustained the cut injuries. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence of the witnesses clearly reveals that the appellant and the victim were at a logger heads and they used to quarrel frequently and it is not surprising that a false case may have been foisted against the appellant. Contradictions were elicited through the cross examination of the witnesses and the cross examination of the IO as per section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Evidence Act, for short) qua section 162 Cr.P.C. The evidence given by the independent witnesses cannot be accepted as their evidence is heresay