The testimonies of interested witnesses should be analyzed with caution for credibility, and minor discrepancies in the testimonies were natural given the time lapse since the incident.

JUDGMENT :

Suman Shyam, J.

Heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellants. We have also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Addl. P.P. Assam, appearing on behalf of the State. None has appeared for the informant.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the six accused persons, viz. Amjad Ali, Haidar Ali, Nur Bakta, Nur Jamal, Abdul Rezzak and Samsul Bari who were convicted under Sections 148/ 447/ 323/ 324/ 326/ 302/ 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by the judgment dated 26-05-2017 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Dhubri in connection with Sessions Case No. 91/2001 and each of them were inter alia sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine with default stipulation.

3. The prosecution case, as unfolded from the materials on record, is to the effect that one Osman Ali had lodged an ejahar dated 11-10-1997 with the Officer-in-Charge of the Mankachar Police Station reporting that at around 06:00 – 07:00 am in the morning, the accused persons, forming an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons such as, spears, lathis, pebbles etc. had launched an attack on his younger brother Rahman Ali causing his instantaneous death. His son Sukur Ali had also suffered grievous injury in the attack and on being referred by the Doctors of the Gajarkandi Primary Health Centre (PHC) Sukur Ali was sent to Dhubri Civil Hospital for treatment. But Sukur Ali died in the afternoon due to the injury suffered by him. As many as 16 (sixteen) accused persons, including the present appellants were named in the ejahar.

4. On receipt of the ejahar, Mankachar P.S. Case No. 159/1997 was registered under Sections 147/ 148/ 149/ 447/ 324/ 302 of the IPC on 11-10-1997 and the case was taken up for investigation by the police. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against all the 16 (sixteen) accused persons. Based on the materials on record, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dhubri had framed charges under Sections 148/ 447/ 323/ 324/ 326/ 302/ 149 of the IPC against all the accused persons. The charges having been read out and explained to them, all the accused persons pleaded not guilty. Hence, they were subjected to trial.

5. During trial, the prosecution side had examined as many as seventeen witnesses including the Doctor (PW-1) who had examined the injured witnesses; the Doctor (PW-15) who had conducted postmortem examination on the dead bodies and the Investigating Officer (PW-17) who had conducted investigation in connection with the Police case.

6. The case of the accused/ appellants was one of total denial. However, the defense side did not lead any evidence.

7. On conclusion of trial and upon appreciation of the evidence brought on record by the prosecution side, by the judgment and order dated 25-05-2017, the learned Sessions Judge had convicted the six accused/ appellants in the manner as indicated hereinabove. However, the remaining 10 (ten) accused persons were acquitted due to want of evidence against them.

8. Assailing the impugned judgment and order dated 25-05-2017, Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the appellants has argued that there is unexplained delay in forwarding the FIR lodged on 11-10-1997 to the concerned Magistrate which raises a suspicion about the veracity of the prosecution case. According to the learned Sr. counsel appearing for the appellants, there are material discrepancies between the ocular evidence and medical evidence as regards the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased persons. Contending that the discrepancy between the ocular evidence and medical evidence would be sufficient to punch a hole in the prosecution case, the learned Sr. counsel for the appellants, by relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Raj Pal & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2007 (AIR) (SCW) 2643 and Ashim Das Vs. State of Assam reported in 1987 CrLJ 1533, has argued that the medical