Victim's testimony as an injured witness is credible and sufficient for conviction, even without additional eyewitnesses; technical defects in charge framing do not warrant overturning if no prejudice is shown.

This revision petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 10.04.2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2024, whereby the learned Sessions Judge affirmed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Dharmanagar, in Case No. PRC (WP) 130 of 2022, convicting both the convict-petitioners [here-in-after referred to as the ‘petitioners’] for committing offence punishable under Sections 326 /34 of IPC and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month further.

2. Brief fact of the prosecution case is that the victim, Md. Gyas Uddin, is the son of the petitioner, Farid Uddin and full blood brother of another petitioner, Jalil Uddin. He lodged the FIR on 23.07.2022 alleging that on that day, at about 7:30 pm, when he was on the roadside in front of his house, his said father and brother inflicted ‘dao’ blows on him. He collapsed on the ground with bleeding injuries and thereafter they also assaulted him indiscriminately with sticks. The locals called the Fire Service by which he was taken to Dharmanagar District Hospital, wherein he got treatment.

3. The charges against both the petitioners were framed under Sections 326 read with Section 34 of IPC and also under Section 506 of read with of . No conviction was rendered upon the petitioners under of .

4. The prosecution, during trial, examined total 13 witnesses who are the victim (PW-1), his mother (PW-2), wife of the petitioner Jalil Uddin (PW-3), uncles of the victim (PWs 4 and 5), Medical Officer (PW-6), Fireman (PW-7), co-villagers (PWs 8, 9 & 10) and the rest three witnesses i.e. PWs 11, 12, & 13 were the police officials.

5. PW-1, the victim, Md. Gyas Uddin in his evidence, categorically stated that on the said date and time, on Tongibari-Sabajpur road, he was proceeding to the market from his house and when he reached closer to the house of his brother (petitioner No.2), both his father and the said brother had assaulted him physically by machete and lathi. He suffered grievous injuries on his head, face, cheek and right shoulder. On his outcry, the neighbouring people gathered on the spot and then he was taken to Dharmanagar District Hospital and from there he was shifted to AGMC & GBP Hospital, Agartala, where he was admitted for about one month.

In his cross-examination, PW-1 stated that the petitioner No.2 was residing in his father’s house where his parents were also residing. He also stated that there was a dispute between them relating to the property but when his parents started living with his said brother, there was no dispute between them at that time.

6. PW.2, Mst. Razia Begam, the mother of the victim i.e. the wife of the present petitioner No.1 though divulged in her evidence that after she went to the place of occurrence, she found the victim in a pool of blood and was bleeding but she did not support the prosecution case. Therefore, she was declared hostile by the prosecution. She also admitted that at that time she was residing with the petitioners. She also admitted that the victim used to create disturbances for property.

7. PW-3, Mst. Anuwara Khan is the wife of the petitioner No.2 and she was also similarly declared hostile by the prosecution as she did not support the prosecution case.

8. The wives of both the petitioners, who were not likely to support the prosecution’s version, were made witnesses in this case by the investigating officer. Therefore, it cre