Conviction upheld for assault; delay in FIR filing does not invalidate corroborated witness testimonies.

1. This criminal revision has been directed against the judgment dated 28.06.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Belonia in case No. Criminal Appeal 16 of 2018 affirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 29.05.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Belonia, South Tripura whereby the petitioner was convicted under S.341 and S.324 IPC and sentenced to fine of Rs.300/- and ID to SI for 10 (ten) days under S.341 and RI for 6 (six) months for having committed offence punishable under S.324 .

2. The facts of the case are as under:
Smt. Sima Das, D/O - Late Jagat Das of Gabtali, Belonia lodged a written complaint with the Officer - in - Charge of PR Bari police station on 17.11.2008 alleging, inter alia, that when she was returning home after collecting drinking water from the nearby water source on 13.11.2008 at about 03.30 p.m., the petitioner stood on her way and started threatening her with dire consequences. When she raised protest, the accused gave a blow on her cheek with a dao (a sharp edged weapon). Following her hue and cry, the neighbouring people appeared for her rescue. Seeing them the accused petitioner fled. The injured informant was then taken to Nihar Nagar hospital. Having returned home from hospital, she came to know that the accused petitioner also ransacked her house after assaulting her.

3. Based on her FIR, PR Bari P.S. case No. 132 of 2008 under S.341,326,447,427 and 506 IPC was registered and the investigation of the case was taken up.

4. Sri Ranjit Kr. Datta, Sub - Inspector of Police of PR Bari police station conducted the whole investigation of the case. His investigation revealed that the accused petitioner attacked the informant on the date of occurrence at the alleged place and assaulted her and thereafter he also trespassed into her house and committed mischief by damaging her household goods. On the basis of the investigation done by him, the investigating officer filed charge sheet No. 110 of 2008 dated 30.11.2008 against the accused petitioner for having committed offence punishable under S.341, S.324, S.447, S.427 and S.506 IPC .

5. The learned trial court framed charges of offence punishable under S.341, S.324, S.447, S.427 and S.506 IPC against the accused petitioner. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed a trial.

6. During the trial of the case 8 (eight) witnesses were examined on the prosecution side and 4 (four) documents were adduced to prove the prosecution case against the accused. After the recording of the prosecution evidence was over, the accused was examined under S.313, Cr.P.C. In reply, the accused petitioner pleaded innocence and claimed that the charges were foisted on him. The learned trial court recorded the statement of the accused made under S.313 Cr.P.C. He declined to adduce any witness on his defence.

7. On appreciation of evidence, the learned trial court found the accused petitioner guilty of offence punishable under S.341 and S.324 IPC and convicted him for those offences. He was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.300/- with default stipulation for offence punishable under S.341 and RI for 6 (six) months for offence punishable under S.324 . In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Belonia upheld the conviction and sentence of the accused petitioner by the impugned judgment. Hence, this criminal revision.

8. I have heard Mr. R.G. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Addl. P.P representing the State respondent.

9. Appearing for the accused petitioner Mr. R.G. Chakraborty, learned