IMPORTANT POINT
The evidentiary value of an injured witness is significant, and their testimony should not be dismissed lightly, especially when corroborated by medical evidence.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.

1. Heard Mr. I.H. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K.K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.

2. The present application is filed under Section 401 and Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 assailing judgment and order dated 12.03.2008 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi in GR Case No. 377/2005 convicting the petitioners under Section 323 IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC and sentencing them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- each. The further challenge is the impugned appellate judgment dated 27.05.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi in Criminal Appeal No. 5/2008 preferred by the present petitioners, whereby the judgment and order dated 12.03.2008 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi was affirmed.

3. During the pendency of this revision petition, the petitioner No. 1 died on 26.03.2014 and the petitioner No. 5 died in the year 2016. Such fact has not been disputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Accordingly, the proceeding stands abated against the petitioner Nos. 1 and 5.

4. The prosecution was launched on the basis of an information lodged by one, Basir Uddin Borbhuiya, the father of the victim, inter-alia, alleging that on the instruction of petitioner No. 1, petitioner Nos. 2 and 5 chased and caught hold of his son and dealt blow to his entire body with lathi and accused Nos. 4 and 5 caused grievous injury on the head of his son for the reason that the buffaloes belonging to the informant broke the embankment of the accused/petitioners.

5. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR, Hailakandi PS Case No. 181/2004 under Section 147/341/325 IPC was registered. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet under Section 147/341/323 IPC and sent them for trial. On receipt of charge-sheet, summons were issued to the accused petitioners and accordingly the petitioners appeared before the learned trial court and the learned trial court under its order dated 20.10.2006 explained the offences under Section 147/341/323 IPC, which the accused petitioners pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To bring home the charges, the prosecution side examined as many as six witnesses including the informant, victim, I/O, M/O and one projected eye witness as PW3. The defence side, however, did not adduce any witness though their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded.

7. After elaborately dealing with the material and appreciating the prosecution evidence, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the petitioners as recorded hereinabove. Being aggrieved, the petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal No. 5/2008, however, the same was also dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 27.05.2013. It was also concluded that the sentence awarded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi cannot be said to be harsh or excessive in the given facts of the case. Being aggrieved, the present petition is filed.

8. Mr. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are material contradiction in the evidence of the PW1 and PW3 and the evidence of PW5 and therefore, the injured victim is not trust worthy. In the aforesaid backdrop, without independent corroboration, the petitioners could not have been convicted. The learned counsel further contends that the medical evidence also did not corroborate the nature of injury as depicted by PW5. Therefore, both the judgments are vitiated by perversity.

9. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the PW3, which is projected to be an eye witness is interested witness and therefore testimonies of such witness could not have been relied by the learned courts below. Referring to the evidence of PW6 (I/O), the learned counsel further submits that the PW6 in his deposition clearly stated that on his visit to place of occ