The testimony of an injured witness is highly reliable and should be given due weight unless major contradictions exist.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.

Heard Mr. G. Pathak, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam.

2. This is an appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order dated 07.04.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji in Sessions Case No.21 (DH)/2010. The appellant was convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of 2(two) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulations.

3. On 06.06.2009, Sri Rajani Kardong had lodged an FIR before police alleging that on the same evening at about 6 P.M., while Mohini Kardong was returning home from Panchayat Office, the present appellant attacked him with a khukuri. Mohini Kardong sustained injuries. On conclusion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed.

4. The trial court framed the charges under Sections 341, 326, and 307 of the Indian Penal Code against the present appellant.

5. During the trial, the prosecution side examined 7(seven) witnesses. The appellant did not examine any witnesses in his defence. On the basis of the evidence on record, the trial court did not find the appellant guilty under Sections 326 and 307 of the IPC. However, the court found materials against the appellant under Section 324 of the IPC. Accordingly he was convicted under Section 324 of the IPC.

6. I have gone through the prosecution evidence.

7. I shall take up the evidence of PW-1, the victim Mohini Kardong first. He is the victim. He was aged about 43 years old. He supported the prosecution story in his evidence. This witness has stated that he sustained cut injuries on his head and neck. According to this witness, after causing those injuries to him, the appellant ran away.

8. Now, I shall take up the evidence of the 6^th prosecution witness, who was the doctor who examined Mohini Kardong on 06.06.2009. He spoke about his Report. Mohini had sustained cut injuries on his head and neck at different places.

9. The 3rd prosecution witness was Minali Narah. She is the sister-in-law of the appellant. She has stated in her evidence that at the relevant time of occurrence, the victim Mohini Kardong had assaulted the appellant with a split bamboo and in retaliation, the appellant attacked him with another split bamboo. This witness came to know at a later stage that Mohini Kardong had sustained injuries on his head and other parts of the body.

10. The 4^th prosecution witness Smti. Runumai Narah. She has stated in her evidence that the clash between the appellant and Mohini Kardong was held on the ground that the appellant had given shelter to Dharmakanta, the father of the aforesaid Minali Narah in his house for providing medical treatment.

11. The other prosecution witnesses are the wife of the victim and the complainant. They are not eye witnesses and their evidences are not relevant for this case.

12. In this case, the victim Mohini Kardong has admitted in his evidence that the reason for his clash with the appellant was that the appellant had given shelter to Dharmakanta, the father of Minali Narah in his house for giving medical treatment.

13. On the basis of the evidence of the doctor who examined Mohini Kardong on the day of occurrence, the learned trial court disagreed with the evidences of Minali Narah and Runumai Narah holding that split bamboo could not have caused the cur injuries to Mohini Kardong. The learned trial court found the evidence of Mohini Kardong (the victim) to be trustworthy and reliable. According to trial court, there is no evidence in this case to suggest that the injuries sustained by Mohini Kardong could have caused his death.

14. Therefore, the trial court acquitted the appellant from the offences under Sections 341, 326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. But, the trial court convicted the appellant under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code.

15. I have considered the submissions made by