JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. By the impugned judgment and order, dated 05.07.99, passed, in Sessions Case No. 29/97 the accused-Appellant stands convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two months. 2. The case of the prosecution may, in brief, described as follows: On the night of 19.01.96, Sahar Ali (P.W. 4), his elder brother, Jinnat (P.W. 1), Sahar's wife, Kamila (P.W. 3) and Jinnat's wife, Asiya (P.W. 2), who all used to live in the same house, got up to have their seheri (i.e. taking of meals before dawn during the period of Ramjan). After having his meals, Sahar Ali proceeded towards their latrine, located within their Courtyard, and at that point of time, his wife (P.W. 3) was standing with a lamp in her hand in order to provide light to her husband, Sahar Ali, so as to enable him to proceed towards their latrine. When Sahar Ali was passing by the side of a jackfruit tree, the accused, who was hiding behind the said tree, abruptly came out and gave a blow, with a dagger, on the back of Sahar Ali. On receiving the blow, Sahar Ali cried out and, instinctively, turned back. When he so turned back, he saw accused Noor Islam with a dagger in his hand, Sahar Ali (P.W. 4) tried to catch hold of the accused, but the accused started running away. Injured Sahar ran after the accused. While the accused was so running away, Sahar's brother, Jinnat (P.W. 1), having recognized the accused, in the light of the lamp, which was kept lit at their Courtyard, too chased the accused, but as injured Sahar Ali fell down after covering some distance, Jinnat Ali stopped and this enabled the accused to flee away. Injured Sahar Ali was, then, shifted to the Civil Hospital, Goalpara, for treatment and he remained there until 11.03.96. On the following day, i.e. on 20.02.96, a complaint was lodged by Jinnat Ali, in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Goalpara, regarding the occurrence. This complaint was sent to the Officer-in-Charge, Pancharatna Police Station, and based on this complaint, police registered a case against the accused under Sections 447 / 324 / 307 IPC. On the following day, i.e. on 20.02.96, a complaint was lodged by Jinnat Ali, in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Goalpara, regarding the occurrence. This complaint was sent to the Officer-in-Charge, Pancharatna Police Station, and based on this complaint, police registered a case against the accused under Sections 447 / 324 / 307 IPC. During investigation, a dagger was seized by the police on being led by the accused from his house. On completion of the investigation, police laid charge-sheet against the accused under Sections 447/324/307 IPC. 3. To the charges framed against him under Sections 324 and 307 of the IPC, at the trial, the accused pleaded not guilty. 4. In support of their case, the prosecution examined altogether seven witnesses. The accused was, then, examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure In his examination aforementioned, the accused denied that he had committed the offences alleged to have committed by him, the case of the defence being that of total denial. No evidence was adduced by the defence. 5. On finding the accused not guilty of the offence charged with under Section 307 IPC, the learned trial Court acquitted him accordingly. However, on finding the accused guilty of the charge framed against him under Section 324 IPC, the learned trial Court convicted the accused accordingly and passed sentence against him as indicated hereinabove. The accused has, now, preferred this appeal. 6. As no one appeared at the time of hearing of the present appeal on behalf of the accused-Appellant, this Court appointed Mr. Rakesh Dubey, learned Counsel, as Amicus Curiae and I have heard him accordingly. I have also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 7. Let me, first, consider the evidence of the injured, namely, Sahar Ali (P.W. 4). Rakesh Dubey, learned Counsel, as Amicus Curiae and I have heard him accordingly. I have also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 7. Let me, first, consider the evidence of the injured, namely, Sahar Ali (P.W. 4). According to the evidence of this witness, he (P.W. 4), his wife (P.W. 3), his elder brother, Jinnat (P.W. 1) and his said brother's wife (P.W. 2) got up to have seheri and, at about 3.00 a.m., he (P.W. 4) proceeded towards their latrine for the purpose of cleaning his bowels and while he was so proceeding towards their latrine, his wife (P.W. 3) was standing at the Courtyard with a lamp in her hand and, when he happened to pass by the side of a jackfruit tree, the accused, who was hiding behind the said tree, abruptly appeared and gave a blow with a dagger on his back. It is in the evidence of P.W. 4 that on being given the blow, he cried out in pain and turned back and when he so turned back, he saw the accused with a dagger in his hand and when he tried to catch hold of the accused, the accused started running away and he (P.W. 4) also ran after the accused. It is also in the evidence of P.W. 4 that on hearing his cries, his elder brother (P.W. 1), his elder brother's wife (P.W. 2) and his own wife (P.W. 3) rushed to the place, all of them saw the accused fleeing away and they too attempted to chase and catch hold of the accused. P.W. 4 has deposed that though they chased the accused, but as he (P.W. 4) fell down after covering a short distance, P.W. 1, P.W. 2, and P.W. 3 came near him (P.W. 4) and the accused managed to escape. P.W. 4 has also deposed that he was taken to the Civil Hospital, Goalpara and treated there. 8. P.W. 4 has deposed that though they chased the accused, but as he (P.W. 4) fell down after covering a short distance, P.W. 1, P.W. 2, and P.W. 3 came near him (P.W. 4) and the accused managed to escape. P.W. 4 has also deposed that he was taken to the Civil Hospital, Goalpara and treated there. 8. Broadly in tune with the evidence of P.W. 4, P.W. 1 has deposed that on the day of the occurrence, they got up to have their seheri and, while P.W. 4 was proceeding towards their latrine, the accused, who was hiding behind a jackfruit tree, came out and gave a blow with a dagger on the back of P.W. 4 and when P.W. 4 turned around, P.W. 4 saw accused Noor Islam and tried to catch hold of the accused, but the accused started running away. It is in the evidence of P.W. 1 that when the accused was so running away, he (P.W. 1), Sahar's wife (P.W. 3), who was standing in the Courtyard with a lantern in her hand, and his own wife (P.W. 2) too chased the accused, but as P.W. 4 fell down, they all came back near his injured brother and the accused managed to run away. It is also in the evidence of P.W. 1 that his said injured brother was, then, taken to the Civil Hospital, Goalpara, for treatment. 9. Though P.W. 1 and P.W. 4 were cross-examined by the defence, nothing, in particular, could be elicited by the defence to show that the evidence given by these two witnesses were false. The evidence of the P.W. 3 (wife of the injured) and P.W. 2 (who is wife of P.W. 1) have lent credible corroboration to the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 4, for, the evidence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 too have remained unshaken on material particulars. 10. Though all the four prosecution witnesses, namely P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4, being members of the same family, may be regarded as interested witnesses, the fact remains that their evidence cannot be discarded without any convincing and cogent reasons. In this regard, I may point out that the evidence given by P.W. 4, who is the injured, is simple, consistent, coherent and has remained, as indicated hereinabove, unshaken in material aspects. In this regard, I may point out that the evidence given by P.W. 4, who is the injured, is simple, consistent, coherent and has remained, as indicated hereinabove, unshaken in material aspects. This witness's evidence clearly shows that on being assaulted on his back by a weapon, when he turned back, he saw the accused. The fact that the accused was known to P.W. 4 and that the other members of the family of P.W. 4 also knew the accused are not in dispute. When the accused is known to P.W. 4 and to the other witnesses and when there is nothing in the evidence, on record, to show that the night of the occurrence was a pitch dark night, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence given by these witnesses, particularly, the injured to the effect that on receiving the blow, when he cried out and turned back, he saw the accused with a dagger in his hands. 11. Coupled with the above, it is also pertinent to note that P.W. 6, who is a doctor, has deposed that on 20.02.96 (i.e. on the following day of the occurrence), at about 8.45 a.m., when he examined injured Sahar Ali, he found as follows: 1) Cut injury over the back in the region of inner side of the left scapula. Size 8 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm. The patient was admitted on 20.02.96 and discharged on 11.03.96. The case was arbulatory during the later part of the stay in the hospital. The nature of injury was simple, caused by sharp weapon, which is fresh in onset. X-ray chest-shows no any pathology. 12. The evidence of P.W. 6 has remained undisputed by the defence. This apart, I do not find anything inherently incorrect or improbable in the findings of P.W. 6 and/or in the opinion rendered by him with regard the nature of the injury found on the person of the injured and/or the nature of the weapon, which might have caused the said injury. 13. The medical evidence on record indicates that P.W. 4 had, indeed, sustained cut injury on his left scapular region and such an injury could have been caused on being given a blow by a dagger. The medical evidence on record, thus, lends great support to the evidence of the injured and the other witnesses aforementioned. 14. 13. The medical evidence on record indicates that P.W. 4 had, indeed, sustained cut injury on his left scapular region and such an injury could have been caused on being given a blow by a dagger. The medical evidence on record, thus, lends great support to the evidence of the injured and the other witnesses aforementioned. 14. What is also important to note is that the learned trial Court has taken note of the fact that though the Investing Officer has agreed with the defence suggestion that P.W. 4 and P.W. 3 had not stated before him that they had recognized the accused in the light of the lantern, yet the fact remains that the statement of P.W. 4 and P.W. 3, as found recorded in the relevant case diary, did show that these two witnesses had, indeed, stated, in their statements before the police, that they had seen the accused running away in the light of the lantern. 15. Even if, for a moment, it is assumed that P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 had not stated before the police that it was, in the light of the lantern/lamp, that they had seen/recognized the accused, the fact remains that when the accused was well known to the prosecution witnesses including the injured (i.e. P.W. 4) and when the evidence on record eloquently speaks that on being assaulted on his scapular region, P.W. 4, immediately, turned back, faced the accused and recognizediaim, there is no reason to reject his evidence either as unbelievable or as unsafe to place reliance upon. 16. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, therefore, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the accused-Appellant was proved, convincingly and beyond reasonable doubt, to have voluntarily caused hurt to P.W. 4 by giving him blow with a dagger, which is an instrument for stabbing or cutting and used, as a weapon of offence, a dagger is likely to cause death. In such circumstances, the learned trial Court committed no error in convicting the accused-Appellant under Section 324 IPC. 17. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, I find no merit in this appeal and I see no reason to interfere with the conviction of the accused-Appellant. In such circumstances, the learned trial Court committed no error in convicting the accused-Appellant under Section 324 IPC. 17. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, I find no merit in this appeal and I see no reason to interfere with the conviction of the accused-Appellant. As regards the sentence passed against the accused-Appellant, I do not find that the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him is harsh or unreasonable. 18. This appeal, therefore, fails and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. The Appellant is hereby directed to surrender, forthwith, in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Goalpara, in order to serve the sentence of imprisonment passed against him. 19. Send back the LCR. Appeal dismissed