Judgment Sarkar (II), J. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Shri N.K. Panja, The then learned Session Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Port Blair in Session Case No. 9 of 1993 arising out of Danduspoint Police Station Case No. 130/92 dated 25.8.1992 under Sections 307/324/326 and 425 I.P.C. The Convict-appellant is the husband of the Victim Jameela and the father of Victim Abdul Salam, Shajida, Sanida, sons and daughters of the Victim. Victim Khadija is the mother-in-law and Victim Ashraf is the brother-in-law of the convict. All the Victims used to stay at Namunaghar and the convict Assainar used to stay in his father's house at Premnagar, since the incidents of assault twice to the Victim Jameela in the past. The Victim Jameela approached the Administration for her protection apprehending severe assault from the husband long before the present incident and ultimately, the Lt. Governor ordered the convict-appellant not to enter into the area at Namunaghar. But on 24.8.1992 at about 21-45 hours the convict armed with dreadly weapons like 'Ballam Deh' came from Premnagar, raided the house of Jameela. He first assaulted Ashraf on the abdomen so severely that bowels came out. Ashraf was taking his meal at that time, and out of fear of life holding the injury with hands ran away through the front door. The convict then assaulted his wife Jameela on several times by the major parts of the body. Alarm raised by Jameela attracted her mother Khadija aed his son and two daughters who rushed to the kitchen and found the convict to assault Jameela. Jameela's mother tried to rescue Jameela but she was also assaulted. In the similar we, both the daughters and son received injuries due to assault by the Victim. Jameela was dragged out from the house and other women went behind hiding out of fear. The convict-appellant once more catered into the house and after a while he left the house and went towards the junction of public road. In the meantime the unconscious body of Jemeela was found nearby a ditch on the road with multiple injuries and she was recovered therefrom. The convict-appellant once more catered into the house and after a while he left the house and went towards the junction of public road. In the meantime the unconscious body of Jemeela was found nearby a ditch on the road with multiple injuries and she was recovered therefrom. One of the neighbours P.W.-7 being attracted by the hue and cry came to the place of occurrence and was reported about the incident and be informed the police FIR was drawn up accordingly on the basis of such information and the police took up investigation. In course of investigation police forwarded all the injured persons to the hospital for their treatment. On the prayer of the police dying declaration of Jameela and Ashraf was recorded by an Executive Magistrate. The weapon of assault was seized along with blood stained lungi, shirt etc. of the accused and forwarded to the Forensic Expert and Serologist. Ultimately Ashraf and Jameela survived. Police then collected the injury reports from the Hospital also the report of the Forensic Expert and Serologist. The eye witnesses were all examined along with other witnesses and on completion of the investigation the police submitted charge-sheet under Sections 307/324/326/452 I.P.C. 2. During Trial the learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 452/324 and 307 I.P.C. against the appellant, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and trial was started. The learned Trial Court during trial examined the witnesses and took into consideration the other materials collected by the police during investigation and also the experts report and finally found the convict-appellant guilty to all the charges and convicted him for the same and passed sentence of 5 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to suffer further R.I. for one year more for the offence under Section 452 I.P.C. and also passed sentence of Imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and also a separate sentence of R.I. for two years for the offence under Section 324 of the I.P.C., but directed that all the sentences would run concurrently. 3. On being, aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and sentence the present appeal is preferred by the appellant on the ground that the Trial Judge has filed to appreciate the discrepancies in the evidence on the side of the prosecution and the order of conviction is not justified by the evidence on record. 3. On being, aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and sentence the present appeal is preferred by the appellant on the ground that the Trial Judge has filed to appreciate the discrepancies in the evidence on the side of the prosecution and the order of conviction is not justified by the evidence on record. It is further submitted that the convict is innocent and that injured persons tried to assault him with dreadly weapon and there was a tustle and in course of that tustle the injured persons received the injuries. 4. This is the case where eye witnesses to the incident are available. This case does not depend on the circumstantial evidence for success. 5. The informant Shajida i.e. P.W.-13 of course appears to be hostile during the examination before the Trial Court. She has denied everything what stated to the police under Section 61 Cr. P.C. and recorded under Section 154 Cr. P.C. but we find at page 62 of the proper book that she admitted "I stated to the police that after departure of my father, I and my brother came out of the house, and searched for my mother and we found that my mother was lying in a pool of blood within the bushes in the drain by the side of the road having serious injuries on her head, hands and body." This statement makes it clear, that she deliberately concealed the truth in order to save her father. Otherwise the expression "after the departure of my father" does not carry any meaning. Rather, this expression indicates that her father came to the P.O. and he also left that place after the fatal incident and as such after his departure P.W.-13 with her brother came out in search of their mother and found the mother near a road side drain with multiple bleeding injuries on her person. Moreover, the evidence of the brother in chief is quite convincing. The brother i.e. P.W.-1 has stated that the father came aid assaulted her mother severely. He further stated that he was reported by Shajlda (P.W.-13) and the maternal Grandmother Khadija (i.e. P.W. 9) that they received injury due to assault by the father i.e. the convict with a Ballam Dah. 6. The brother i.e. P.W.-1 has stated that the father came aid assaulted her mother severely. He further stated that he was reported by Shajlda (P.W.-13) and the maternal Grandmother Khadija (i.e. P.W. 9) that they received injury due to assault by the father i.e. the convict with a Ballam Dah. 6. That apart, Khadija and Ashraf and principle Victim Jameela, all the three persons clearly and categorically stated in their evidence that they were assaulted by the appellant with sharp cutting and pointed weapon. The fact that Jammela, Ashraf, Khadija, Shajida, Abdul Sala and Sanida not only witnessed the incident but also received injury due to the assault by the convict, this fact is also corroborated by the injury reports. It is the case of the prosecution that the injuries were all caused by the convict-appellant, but no alternative case regarding the cause of such injuries could have been suggested by the defence anywhere. From the cross-examination of Ashraf and other injured persons we find the Advocate for defence suggested that the injured persons in a body tried to assault the accused Assainar with dreadly weapons and in that attempt they all received injuries, but Assainar, the accused escaped. Such a suggestion in cross-examination is very much fatal for the defence. Because, this suggestion pinpoints the fact that the convict-appellant was present at the time and place where and when the occurrence took place. We have already mentioned that Assainar convict was by an order of the Lt. Governor was prevented from entering into Namunaghar, but inspite of that on the fateful night and at the relevant time he was there, otherwise the question of being assaulted by the injured persons together could not arise as suggested by the defence counsel. 7. Naturally, the relevant question will came up for what purpose the convict-appellant went to Namunaghar even violating the order of the Lt. Governor ? Definitely, he was not there on pilgrimage with a sharp cutting weapon in his hand. We find from the evidence of the police and other that the convict was arrested with the sharp cutting weapon. It is stated by the police that there was blood stain on the lungi and shirt of the convict, which was subsequently seized by the police. We find from the evidence of the police and other that the convict was arrested with the sharp cutting weapon. It is stated by the police that there was blood stain on the lungi and shirt of the convict, which was subsequently seized by the police. The evidences of the eye witnessed, the statement of the Doctor and police personnel, as well as the injury reports and reports of other experts taken together, there is hardly any scope for doubt that the convict-appellant was the sole another of the offences charged with. 8. The learned Advocate for the appellant dwelt much on the facts that although witnesses mentioned two weapons in the hand of the convict, the police could seize only one weapon. In a case where eye witnesses are there, production of the weapon is not so much important for the case of the prosecution. That apart, if the police fails to seize the other weapon even then, the case of the prosecution shall never be affected adversely. Because, it is well settled principle of law that for laches on the part of the investigating agency the prosecution case shall not suffer, (1) AIR 1956 SC 181 and (2) AIR 1968 Orissa 172. 9. It is also a well settled principle of law that the persons who received the injuries are the best witnesses. Because, they had the opportunity to know who was their actual assailants. Therefore, their evidence carries more weight. The person injured and the relations of such persons shall never by interested in the punishment of an innocent person sparing the real culprit, (3) AIR 1972 SC 860 and AIR 1971 SC 256; (4) 74 Cr. LJ 822 (SC) and (5) AIR 1973 SC 1073 . 10. Besides, the witnesses are all rustic witnesses and as such we cannot expect, in their statements made before the Court about five years after the actual incident, computerised precision. If such precision is found in their statement, then it will not be unreasonable to think, that the witnesses were tutored. 11. 10. Besides, the witnesses are all rustic witnesses and as such we cannot expect, in their statements made before the Court about five years after the actual incident, computerised precision. If such precision is found in their statement, then it will not be unreasonable to think, that the witnesses were tutored. 11. That apart, it is an admitted fact that twice before, the convict tried to assault the wife Jameela and there were criminal cases for such assault, but subsequently due to intervention of the well-wishers of the parties, the criminal cases were compromised and on the last occasion the Administration directed the convict not to enter into the area of Namunaghar. But the convict-appellant was so arrogant and obstinate that nothing could stop him, he made a clear attempt on the life of Jameela and Ashraf. Considering these aspects and the nature and character of the convict-appellant specially his previous conduct, it is true, that he deserves no leniency in the matter of punishment. On the whole we, after hearing the submissions of the learned Advocate for both sides and on perusal or the impugned judgment along with materials and evidence on record, do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in this case. Accordingly, the criminal Appeal is hereby dismissed on contest. The impugned judgment, order of conviction and sentences are affirmed in its entirety. Mitra, J. : I agree.