JUDGMENT Girish Chandra Gupta, J.: This appeal is directed against a judgment dated 21st July, 2000, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Midnapore, in Sessions Trial No. 34 (September) of 1993 arising out of G.R. Case No.240 of 1991 convicting the appellant. Abdul Khalek, under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and an order dated 25th July, 2000, by which the appellant. Abdul Khalek was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life as also to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. 2. Briefly stated the facts of this case are as follows: On 17th May, 1991, at about 5.30 p.m. five accused persons, including the appellant, Abdul Khalek, armed with deadly weapons including a sword attacked the deceased, Mobarak Ali. Hearing the hue and cry the relations of the deceased naturally went to rescue him. They were also assaulted. Mobarak Ali was removed to the local hospital from where he was referred to the P.G. Hospital at Calcutta. He was admitted in the night at 2.30 a.m. He died at 1.30 p.m. on 18th May, 1991. A written complaint was lodged within less than three hours from the occurrence indicating therein the names of the assailants. They were five in number which included the appellant, Abdul Khalek. On the basis of the written complaint G. R. Case No.240 of 1991 was started under section 147/148/149/324/325/326 and 327 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was subsequently added. Seven persons were charged under the aforesaid sections. Six of them were acquitted and the appellant, Abdul Khalek, was convicted initially by a judgment dated 14th August, 1997. He was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life as also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. 3. An appeal against the judgment and order was preferred which was registered as C.R.A. No.276 of 1997. The appeal was allowed by remanding the matter to the learned Trial Court with directions to frame a. specific charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant, Abdul Khalek, and further directions to the learned Trial Court to recall such of the prosecution witnesses as the defence might desire to further cross-examine. The appeal was allowed by remanding the matter to the learned Trial Court with directions to frame a. specific charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant, Abdul Khalek, and further directions to the learned Trial Court to recall such of the prosecution witnesses as the defence might desire to further cross-examine. It is not in dispute that after the matter went back to the learned Trial Court, the learned Trial Judge framed a charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant on 20th April, 2000. On 20th April, 2000, itself submission was made on behalf of the defence that they did not want to further cross-examine any of the witnesses of the prosecution. It is on this basis that the learned Trial Judge fixed the date for examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Trial Judge, after examining the appellant, Abdul Khalek, passed the judgment and awarded the sentence indicated earlier. 4. Since no one appeared, on behalf of the appellant, we appointed Mr. Pradip Kumar Roy, a learned Advocate of this Court, to represent the appellant, Abdul Khalek. At the hearing Mr. Joymalya Bagchi, learned Counsel, also appeared and sought for leave to assist Mr. Roy. Such leave was granted. Mr. Roy, learned Advocate, has advanced the following submissions: (a) The story to be found in the written complaint has largely been developed and embellished by the witnesses in Court; (b) the evidence of the eye-witnesses is contradictory.; (c) all the eye-witnesses talked about an injury by sword whereas postmortem report goes to show that there are as many as ten injuries found on the deadbody of the deceased, Mobarak Ali; (d) lastly, it was submitted by Mr. Roy, learned Advocate, that the case of the defence, is that the deceased, Mobarak Ali, was killed by militants. 5. He relied on the evidence of the D.W.1, Nirmal Jana, an employee of "Ganashakti Patrika" of Calcutta. 6. Mr. Joymalya Bagchi, learned Counsel, appearing for the appellant, supplemented the submission of Mr. Pradip Kumar Roy, learned Advocate. He added that all the witnesses deposed that the injury was inflicted from the backside whereas the doctor's opinion was that the injury was on the front side of the head. This, according to him, seriously erodes the credibility of the case of the prosecution. Pradip Kumar Roy, learned Advocate. He added that all the witnesses deposed that the injury was inflicted from the backside whereas the doctor's opinion was that the injury was on the front side of the head. This, according to him, seriously erodes the credibility of the case of the prosecution. He submitted that there should be an outright acquittal. In any event, according to him, the conviction cannot be one under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code but may at the highest fall within Part I of section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, and he prayed for reduction of the punishment. 7. We shall try to answer the questions raised by the learned Advocates, for the appellant. 8. We do not find any substance in the first submission of Mr. Roy. The object of the written complaint is to set the machinery into motion. The written complaint in the present case gives all particulars as to the persons who participated in dealing of the deadly blow upon the deceased, Mobarak Ali. It discloses the time and place where the incident took place. It also gives the names of the persons, besides the deceased, who had been injured during the incident. The greater details as to how the incident started, how it concluded and how it continued are matters of detail which need not always be indicated in the written complaint. It is well-settled that written complaint or FIR is not an encyclopedia of the entire incident, and if any authority is needed, reference may be made to the judgment in the case of Baldev Singh & Anr. vs. State of Punjab, reported in 1995(6) SCC 593 . 9. The second point advanced by Mr. Roy is equally without any substance. All the eye-witnesses are agreed that it is the appellant, Abdul Khalek, who dealt the deadly blow. It is true that Abdul Khalek was not the only person who was present in the party of the aggressors nor was the deceased the only person to have been assaulted. Besides Mubarak Ali, others were also injured. Besides the appellant, Abdul Khalek, others were also charged under various sections indicated above, but the learned Trial Judge chose to give them benefit of doubt and the State has not preferred any appeal. Therefore, the matter rests there and cannot be reopened. Besides Mubarak Ali, others were also injured. Besides the appellant, Abdul Khalek, others were also charged under various sections indicated above, but the learned Trial Judge chose to give them benefit of doubt and the State has not preferred any appeal. Therefore, the matter rests there and cannot be reopened. As regards the role played by the appellant, Abdul Khalek, we also have indicated that each of the witnesses has corroborated the evidence of the other implicating the appellant, Abdul Khalek, which we shall presently notice. 10. P.W.1, Sk. Gafur Ali, the de facto complainant himself an injured person deposed as follows: "After going to the P.O. I had witnessed that accused Abdul Khalek struck on the head of Mobarak with one sword. At that time Jahanara and Sk. Babar Ali went to save Mobarak. Then accused Abdul Rahaman struck me on my left hand with one bhojali. Then the remaining accused persons had assaulted Jahanara and Babar Ali. Subsequently they were taken to Jhargram hospital. As the condition of Mobarak was serious, he was removed to P.G. Hospital at Calcutta and at that place he had died." 11. P.W.2, Babar Ali, another injured witness, deposed as follows: "Thereafter Abdul Khalek struck on the head of my brother with one talowar. My brother sustained injury on his head. He sat down. Then Abdul Rahaman and Taju had uttered that they will kill me also. Abdul Khalek tried to assault me with one sword. That struck me on my left hand. Thereafter Dilangaj Bibi, Ayesha, Kalu had assaulted my mother Jahanara with one piece of bamboo and by brickbats. Kalu and Taju had assaulted my mother on her head with lathi." 12. P.W.3, Jahanara Begum, also an injured witness, deposed as follows: "Then Abdul Rahaman caught hold of both the hands of Mobarak on his back, then Abdul Khalek struck Mobarak with great force on his head with the help of a sword. Mobarak sustained injuries on his head and he sat down. Accused Abdul Khalek had also assaulted Babar with the help of a talowar. That struck on his left arm. Abdul Rahaman, Dilangaj, Kalu, Ayesha and Manoara had assaulted me with the help of brickbats and lathi. I sustained injury on my head and my injury was stitched in Jhargram hospital. The witness is bringing the marks of stitching to the notice of this Court." 13. That struck on his left arm. Abdul Rahaman, Dilangaj, Kalu, Ayesha and Manoara had assaulted me with the help of brickbats and lathi. I sustained injury on my head and my injury was stitched in Jhargram hospital. The witness is bringing the marks of stitching to the notice of this Court." 13. P.W.4, Ranjit Pal, an independent witness, deposed, inter alia as follows: "Abdul Khalek assaulted Mobarak on his head with the help of one sword. Mobarak sustained injury. I did not find any bleeding as because Mobarak had pressed his both hands on his head. Thereafter Delangaj Bibi, Sk. Kalu, Rahaman had assaulted Jahanara Begum with the help of lathi and bricks. When Babar wanted to save Mobarak, then Abdul Khalek wanted to assault him with one sword and that sword had struck Babar on his left hand causing head injury. When other persons had assembled at the P.O. the accused persons left the place. We took the injured to Jhargram hospital. Jahanara and Mobarak were admitted in that hospital. The condition of Mobarak was serious. On being asked I had stated to the M.O. that Abdul Khalek caused such injuries on the head of Mobarak. He was removed to P.G. Hospital in that night and he died, there in the same. night." 14. The third submission of Mr. Roy is technical rather than substantial or in other words more theoretical than practical. Each of the witnesses deposed that there were more persons than one comprising the aggressors party. Besides the appellant, Abdul Khalek, others had also inflicted injuries. The opinion of the autopsy surgeon is that the injury on the forehead which has been specified as injury No.9 was alone sufficient to cause death. The submission that other injuries were not deposed to by the witnesses in greater detail, we think is not of much substance and is, therefore, rejected. 15. There is no evidence adduced by the defence to show that the deceased was killed by militants. A faint attempt was made at the trial to exhibit a Ganashakti Patrika which contained some news item on the basis of which the defence was sought to build. The newspaper was not tendered. 15. There is no evidence adduced by the defence to show that the deceased was killed by militants. A faint attempt was made at the trial to exhibit a Ganashakti Patrika which contained some news item on the basis of which the defence was sought to build. The newspaper was not tendered. The only witness examined on behalf of the defence, namely, Sri Nirmal Jana, deposed in answer to a question of Court as follows: “To Court: Actually, as because, the photographers and reporters are our trusted employees, we are depending on their information before making press release and we are not going to the spot for verifying that news.” 16. During his examination-in-chief, a prayer was made on behalf of the defence to adjourn the matter in order to enable the Ganashakti Patrika to produce the original report on the basis of which the news item was published. Such adjournment was granted. On the adjourned date the witness deposed as follows: "In spite of our sincere effort we could not trace out the original copy of the report of the news item in question which has been marked as 'X' for identification and all the relevant photograph which was published by us." 17. There is thus no evidence to show that the death was caused by the militants. All the points of Mr. Roy have thus been disposed of. 18. P.W.3, Jahanara Begum, was suggested on behalf of the defence that there was a long standing enmity between the family of the victim and the accused persons. P.W.4, Ranjit Pal, an independent witness, was suggested as follows: "Prior to the date of incident some portion of the property of Abdul Rahaman had vested in the State. Mobarak had given proposal for distribution of such vested lands to the poor cultivators. Not a fact that there was enmity between the parties concerning that proposal." 19. A reference has been made in the suggestion to Abdul Rahaman, who is no other than the father of Abdul Khalek. The suggestion given to the witness of the prosecution goes to show that it is due to the enmity that the deceased was killed by the appellant. 20. Now coming to the first point of Mr. Bagchi it may be pointed out that it is not a fact that all the witnesses deposed that the injury was inflicted from the backside. 20. Now coming to the first point of Mr. Bagchi it may be pointed out that it is not a fact that all the witnesses deposed that the injury was inflicted from the backside. The P.W.2 and the P.W.4 deposed that the injury was inflicted from behind. To be precise, the evidence of the P.W.2 is as follows: "Abdul Rahaman had grappled him behind. Mobarak was struck with a sword from his behind." 21. The P.W.4 deposed as follows: "Khalek struck Mobarak with the help of sword from his behind." 22. The injury may have been inflicted from behind but the question is where did the sword land? We do not think that one can logically show that because the injury was inflicted from behind, the sword could have landed only on the back side of the head. The injury may have been inflicted from the behind or from the front. But the material question is where did the sword land. No one has suggested that the sword landed on the backside of the head: The confusion sought to be created by the defence is based on the evidence of Dr. Mondal, the P.W.9, who had the opportunity to examine the victim at the earliest stage. He deposed as follows: "If any person strikes that patient with any sword, then the injury can be expected on occipital region of the scalp and not in the frontal bone." 23. It has to be noticed that Dr. Mondal, the P.W.9, was talking about a possibility. His evidence otherwise is that he found "one incised wound measuring about 5 inch x 5½ inch x 1 inch x ½ inch over the vault of the scalp. The frontal bone of the scalp was divided. The wound was placed longitudinally over vault of the scalp. The nature of the injury was grievous. In my opinion, such injury can be caused if the patient is struck by a sword." 24. We are unable to persuade ourselves to hold that such an injury cannot be inflicted from behind the victim. We are, therefore, unable to accept this submission of Mr. Bagchi. 25. The last submission advanced by Mr, Bagchi, is equally without any force. Dr. Das, the P.W. 14, the autopsy surgeon, found as many as ten injuries on the deadbody of the victim. We are, therefore, unable to accept this submission of Mr. Bagchi. 25. The last submission advanced by Mr, Bagchi, is equally without any force. Dr. Das, the P.W. 14, the autopsy surgeon, found as many as ten injuries on the deadbody of the victim. The ninth injury is as follows: "One stitched up wound over forehead middle with five stitches on removal of the stitch i.e. measured 5" x ½' x bone deep cut mark was found over frontal bone through and through along inter-parietal sutcher - 5" in length going up to brain." 26. In his evidence he deposed that injury No.9 is sufficient to cause death of a person in the ordinary course of nature. 27. Mr. Bagchi, the learned Counsel, for the appellant, has not indicated as to how does the case come within the four corners of Part I of section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. According to us, the case clearly and squarely comes within the provisions of 'thirdly' under section 300 of the Indian Penal Code which provides as follows: "300. Murder. ........................................ Thirdly.-If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature• to cause death." 28. This injury on the head was obviously intended. This alone was sufficient to cause death and therefore the case is clearly one under section 302 IPC. 29. We have, thus, disposed of all the points raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant. In summing up, it may be pointed out that the incident was promptly informed to the police within less than three hours. The names of the assailants were indicated in the First Information Report. The weapon used was also indicated. The names of the assailants were disclosed to the attending physician by the injured witnesses. The doctors, including the autopsy surgeon, have deposed that the injury could have been caused by a sword. The P.W. 14 has deposed that the ninth injury was alone sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of the person.' 30. We are, under the circumstances, of the opinion that there is no scope to interfere with the judgment and order under appeal. The appeal is as such, dismissed. 31. The P.W. 14 has deposed that the ninth injury was alone sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of the person.' 30. We are, under the circumstances, of the opinion that there is no scope to interfere with the judgment and order under appeal. The appeal is as such, dismissed. 31. The appellant, Abdul Khalek, is directed, through his learned Counsel, to surrender forthwith before the concerned learned Trial Court and to serve out the rest of the sentence. The bail granted to the appellant. Abdul Khalek, by the order dated 21st August, 2001, stands cancelled. The concerned learned Trial Court is directed to take the appellant, Abdul Khalek, into custody at once. 32. Let a copy of this judgment and the Lower Court Records be sent down to the concerned learned Trial Court for information and necessary action. 33. Let urgent xerox copy of this judgment, if applied for, be delivered to the learned Counsel, for the parties, upon compliance of usual formalities. Kishore Kumar Prasad. J.: I agree. Appeal dismissed.