The testimony of an injured victim is of high evidentiary value; a conviction can be sustained on the evidence of a single witness of sterling quality. Procedural delays in reporting crime are not fatal to the prosecution if adequately explained by the victim's medical condition.

JUDGMENT :

SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J.

1. Heard learned legal Aid counsel Ms. P.B. Bordoloi for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. B. Sarma for the State of Assam.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 22.08.2023 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Golaghat in Sessions Case No. 216/2022 convicting the petitioner under Sections 341/326/307 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short) and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for 20 days, rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.1500/- and rigorous imprisonment for seven years and the fine of Rs.1500/- respectively under the aforementioned sections of law. The sentences are to run concurrently and default stipulation has been imposed against each fine sentence. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 24.07.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Golaghat in Criminal Appeal No. 25/ 2023, dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner, Ananta Tanti.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no intention is discernible. Without intention or knowledge, the petitioner cannot be convicted of an offence under Section 307 IPC. There are no ingredients to prove the offence u/s 307 . The evidence of the medical officer clearly depicts that this is not the case under Section 326 . The weapon of offence has been described as ‘Kalam Kotari’ by PW1 and PW2, whereas it has been described as dao by PW-3, 4 and 5. ‘Dao’ and ‘Kalam Kotari’ are different types of instruments or appliances used for cutting. It is submitted that there is no direct evidence or evidence of eyewitnesses. The learned trial court has mechanically held the petitioner to be guilty of offence under Sections 341/326/307 on the basis of hearsay evidence.

4. It is further contended that the evidence of the I.O, clearly depicts that he had not produced the extract copy of the GD entry. Contradiction surfaces relating to the place of occurrence. PW1 has referred to a place of occurrence which has been contradicted by the other witnesses. There was a delay in lodging the FIR which is a material discrepancy. Material contradictions could be elicited through the cross-examination of the witnesses, vis-a-vis the cross- examination of the I.O. It is further submitted that the evidence of the I.O clearly reveals that he has admitted that the weapon of offence was not seized from the accused/petitioner. It is further submitted that the people residing around the place of occurrence have not been examined as witnesses. The cross-examination of the witnesses clearly reveal that the adjoining neighbours were not examined, which casts a shadow of doubt over the veracity of evidence.

5. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor laid stress in his argument that the victim is the star witness and he would not go to falsely implicate another person who has not caused the injury. He has sustained grievous injuries on his neck and through elaborate discussions of the evidence of PW2 i.e. the victim, it is apparent that the PW2 is suffering from restricted neck movements.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Adalat Yadav vs. The State of