IMPORTANT POINT
The evidence of an injured witness is accorded special status in law, and their testimony is generally reliable unless substantial contradictions are present. The court emphasized the importance of evaluating the overall credibility of such witnesses in light of corroborating evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Malasri Nandi, J.

Heard Ms. D. Saikia, learned Amicus Curiae. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant from jail against the judgment and order dated 12.03.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji in Sessions Case No. 38(DH)/2018 under Section 326/307 IPC whereby the accused appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-in default RI for one month for the offence under Section 307 IPC. The appellant was also sentenced to undergo RI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-in default, RI for another one month under Section 326 IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the 09.03.2018, an FIR has been lodged before the in-charge, Machkhowa police outpost under Dhemaji police station stating inter alia that on the same day at about 6 am in the morning hour, while the injured, wife of the informant came out from the room by opening the back door of their house, suddenly the accused appellant attacked her with a mit dao causing grievous injuries on her person. Having seen the incident, the mother of the complainant (PW-7) raised hue and cry and some neighboring people came to the spot and saved the life of the injured. They also called 108 ambulance and the injured victim was taken to Dhemaji Civil Hospital for treatment and thereafter, she was shifted to Dibrugarh Medical College for better treatment.

4. On receipt of the complaint, one GD entry was recorded vide Machknowa outpost GDE No. 146 dated 09.03.2018 and forwarded the same to O/C, Dhemaji police station for registering a case. Accordingly, a case was registered vide Dhemaji PS Case No. 90/2018 under Section 341/326/307 IPC and the investigation was initiated. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was laid against the accused appellant under the aforesaid Sections of law. As the offence under Section 307 IPC is exclusively triable by the court or Sessions, the case was committed accordingly.

5. During trial, charge was framed under Section 326/307 IPC which was read over and explained to the accused appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, nine witnesses were examined and exhibited eight documents and marked one material exhibit, the alleged Khukri by which the appellant inflicted injury towards the victim. At the closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein the incriminating materials found in the statement of the witnesses were put to him to which he denied the same. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the accused appellant was convicted as aforesaid.

6. The submission of the learned Amicus Curiae is that the trial court has failed to appreciate the contradiction between the victim and the other prosecution witnesses in respect of the weapon and the time of occurrence. It is further submitted that except the victim, there is no eye witness to the incident. The seizure witness stated that he put his signature in the seizure list in the police station and hence, the recovery of the material object is doubtful.

7. Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted that though the accused was convicted under Section 326 and 307 IPC for a period of seven years and five years respectively, however, he has completed the period of five years in jail since the date of delivery of judgment. As the appellant has already in jail for almost six years, his sentence of seven years be reduced to already undergone.

8. In support of his submission, learned Amicus Curiae has relied on a case law in Crl. A. No. 17/1969 (Jay Narayan Misra and others vs State of Kerala).

9. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that except the victim, PW-7 is the eye witness to the inc