Unexplained delays in FIR lodging and witness testimony can create reasonable doubt, necessitating acquittal.

1. This criminal jail appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18-3-2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonamura, West Tripura in Sessions Trial (Type - II) No. 8 of 2014 convicting the appellant u/S. 326, IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and, in default thereof, to suffer another six months of rigorous imprisonment. The co - accused was, however, acquitted.

2. The facts giving rise to the appeal may be briefly noted at the outset. It is the case of the prosecution that on 2-6-2012 at 17.30 hrs, one Muklesh Miah of Khedabari (Jolaibari) village within the jurisdiction of Sonamura Police Station lodged a written ejahar to the Officer - in - Charge, Sonamura Police Station against the appellant and one other, namely, Saddam Hossain stating that on 1-6-2012 at about 7 p.m., when his younger brother, namely, Samsul Haque, along with other villagers were enjoying T.V programme in the verandah of the shop of one Mano Miah, the appellant with Saddam Hossain, armed with dagger, suddenly appeared thereat and struck at Samsul Haque on his belly by a dagger due to land dispute, which resulted in causing serious injuries and punctured wound on his abdomen. The victim was immediately taken to Melaghar Hospital, but was referred to GBP Hospital, Agartala the same night for better treatment. On the basis of the ejahar lodged, the police registered Sonamura P.S. Case No. 98 of 2012 dated 2-6-2012 u / S.326/307/34, IPC against the appellant and the said Saddam Hossain and took up investigation of the case. On completion of the investigation, the police charge - sheeted the appellant and the co - accused before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sonamura to stand the trial. As the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the case was committed to and placed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonamura for trial. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, having found a prima facie case, framed the charges against the appellant and the co - accused for commission of the offences punishable u / S.326/307/34, IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty to and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses to bring home the charges against the appellant and non - appellant. However, PW - 12 (Mohd. Jahangir Hossain) was declared hostile. After conclusion of the trial, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant to imprisonment and acquitted the non - appellant as indicated earlier. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

3. Assailing the impugned judgment, Mr. P.K. Biswas, the learned senior counsel for the appellant, firstly, submits that the trial Court has completely overlooked the glaring fact that there was inordinate delay in lodging FIR by the informant and that the explanation of the delay given by the informant in the FIR that they were busy with giving treatment to the victim is not satisfactory, moreso, when the informant did not even accompany the victim to the hospitals, moreso, when the police station is close by such inordinate and unexplained delay alone is sufficient to acquit the appellant. He secondly contends that the statement of the victim (PW - 11) was recorded by the IO of the case only some twelve days of the incident without explanation of the delay, but the trial Court has not given any consideration to the delayed recording of the victim thereby creating serious doubt on the case of the prosecution. He maintains that the main prosecution witnesses are all partis