Judgment :- (1) By this appeal the judgment and sentence of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Port Blair has been assailed by the appellant. The appellant has been convicted under Section 307 of I.P.C. and as such he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years subject to setting off the period of detention if any undergone by him during trial and has been awarded to pay fine of Rs. 15.000/-, in default, suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years. The appellant was arraigned with the charges under Section 307 on the fact which is shortly put hereunder. (2) One Promod Ram, PW-2 lodged a complaint (Fardbayan) with the officer incharge, Pahargaon Police Station to the effect that on 17th March, 2000 in the afternoon, he along with his cousin brother (Pyare Lall, victim 2 PW 1) and his son (Pyare Lall) had gone to the field to graze their cattle. While they were returning at about 5 pm on 17th of March, 2000 from the grazing field which comprises of jungle garden and greenery land they reached near a bridge nullah (ditch) and the gate of Deputy Superintendent of Police of Fire Brigade, the accused/appellant wearing white check shirt and pant approached there and he drew near PW1 and detained him at the road side carrying a Dah (a sharp metal weapon). The accused/appellant then told PW1 that he would not allow him to remain alive as he (Pyare Lall) was frequently Informing the police that he has been running business of illicit liquor and as a result he is being arrested and taken into custody of the Police. He would not spare him this time, and he would kill him as retaliatory measure. Immediate after these words he brought out the said weapon which was kept hidden inside his shirt and then he started inflicting blows on the back of head of Pyare Lall and other parts of his body and then fled towards Basti. Thereafter the informant with the help of the police could shift injured Pyare Lall to Primary Health Centre at Garacharma. However, he could not be treated properly there as such he was shifted to better place viz. G.B. Pant Hospital at Port Blair. At this hospital he was admitted for treatment on 17th March, 2000 and was discharged on 31st March, 2000 after having recovered from illness. However, he could not be treated properly there as such he was shifted to better place viz. G.B. Pant Hospital at Port Blair. At this hospital he was admitted for treatment on 17th March, 2000 and was discharged on 31st March, 2000 after having recovered from illness. (3) On receipt of aforesaid complaint, formal FIR was drawn up, investigation was started followed by arrest of the accused after collecting all material evidences and having examined the witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C the charge sheet was submitted. The learned Sessions Judge after case being committed has framed charge under Section 307 of I.P.C. On pleading "not guilty" to the said charges, learned Sessions Judge started trial. (4) It appears from the records the prosecution examined 13 witnesses and also collected documentary and material evidences. The appellant did not cite any witnesses. From the trend of cross examinations and the answer given by the appellant to the questions put by the learned Trial Judge under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, it appears the defence stand was of innocence as he could not be present at the time and place of occurrence. (5) It appears that out of 13 witnesses, 2 were eye witnesses, One of the two is the injured person. After appreciating and analyzing evidence, the learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution has been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. (6) Mr. Krishna Rao, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant taking me through the evidence and also judgment of the learned Trial Judge submits that the judgment of conviction of learned Trial Judge is not sustainable as it suffers from illegality by reason of the fact that prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond any doubt. The falsity of the case is evident in the evidences of the witnesses of the prosecution. There is serious contradiction as regard duration of conversation between PW-1 (victim) and the appellant before the alleged incident took place. That apart there has also been contradiction between the testimony of PW-7 and PW-1 as to the time of occurrence. Moreover, it would appear from the evidence of PW-7 that the appellant could not be present at the place of occurrence at the time mentioned as he was found to have been distilling country liquor at about 1650 hrs. That apart there has also been contradiction between the testimony of PW-7 and PW-1 as to the time of occurrence. Moreover, it would appear from the evidence of PW-7 that the appellant could not be present at the place of occurrence at the time mentioned as he was found to have been distilling country liquor at about 1650 hrs. Therefore, how it was possible that the appellant could assault at 4 or 5 pm on that day. (7) The story of seizure of the offending weapon (Dah) and the wearing apparels of the appellant is totally false and such falsity will appear from contradictory evidence of PW 3. As according to his own evidence he had been in the G.B.Pant Hospital at 8.30 pm till 9.00 pm, and it appears from the seizure list being exhibit-2, the seizure of alleged materials was made at 21.10 hrs. at Pahar Gaon Police Station which is situated at a distance of about 12 km from G.B.Pant Hospital as per the evidence of PW-2. Therefore, the story of seizure in presence of PW-3 was unbelievable. Besides, the alleged seizure was attempted to be proved by testimony of PW-3 who had spoken about the presence of PW-4 who in his evidence did not speak about anything regarding seizure. (8) The evidence of PW-5 being the Doctor who testified regarding the nature of injuries should not have been accepted. In his report he did not report that injury No.2 was grievous, but at the time of his examination in Court, this witness has stated that injury No. 2 was grievous, therefore this testimony is after thought in order to implicate the appellant falsely under Section 307. Apart from injury No. 2, other two injuries are simple in nature admittedly. He further argues that it is strange that none of the police personnels who were in the police vehicle by which the appellant was taken to Primary Health Centre at Garacharma came to depose nor did they lodge any complaint with police station. Even the doctor who allegedly treated at Primary Health Centre, Garacharma did not inform about the incident to the police, even though she was informed about the incident of assault. Lastly, there has been unexplained delay for about 4 hours for registration of FIR though the complaint was made at G.B. Pant Hospital by PW-2 at 7.30 prn. Even the doctor who allegedly treated at Primary Health Centre, Garacharma did not inform about the incident to the police, even though she was informed about the incident of assault. Lastly, there has been unexplained delay for about 4 hours for registration of FIR though the complaint was made at G.B. Pant Hospital by PW-2 at 7.30 prn. Both PW-1 and PW-2 being the eye witnesses are interested witnesses. Their evidences ought to have been disbelieved by the learned Trial Judge instead he has relied on their testimony despite serious contradiction by omission. (9) PW-1 is the injured person while PW-2 is the cousin brother of PW-1. Another person Panna Lal who was also present at the time of incident could have been examined as witness, but it was not done and no explanation is forth coming why he was not examined. (10) He therefore submits that in view of aforesaid serious infirmity and illegality the prosecution case must be disbelieved and the appellant must be acquitted from the charges. (11) Mr. Mondal, learned P.P appearing for the respondent State submits that there are two eye witnesses who have categorically stated vividly how the incident took place and also the motive behind assaulting. He submits answering to plea of contradiction, so far as it relates to the time that the same is bound to happen in this case, as the incident took place in the year 2000 whereas the witnesses came to depose in Court in 2004. So after four years it is quite natural and normal that there will be some degree of contradiction. He says that there is no delay in lodging an FIR. Four hours delay is not a delay at all in the case of this nature. The incident took place at about 4-5 pm and the complaint was lodged at 7 oclock in the evening at G.B.Pant Hospital. It is quite natural that the eye witnesses and other persons will be busy for arranging the treatment of the victim instead of lodging complaint with the police. It is quite natural that first task of all the persons involved would be to save the life of injured person, in this case injury was such a nature that any amount of delay in proper treatment and medical care would have been fatal. It is quite natural that first task of all the persons involved would be to save the life of injured person, in this case injury was such a nature that any amount of delay in proper treatment and medical care would have been fatal. In this case it will appear from the report of doctors as well as their evidence and other material evidence that injury No. 2 is grievous one and the brain substance came out owing to such injury, obviously all the persons including doctor could not think at the first instance to make any complaint to the police. Police will not be able to save the life. Under such circumstances, the delay in lodging complaint is natural. On the contrary had there been complaint with the police instantly there would have been reason for doubting in the veracity of the incident. Offending weapon viz. Dah wearing apparels of the appellant were stained with human blood, so also the appellants wearing apparels. Upon serological test it was found that the nature and group of the blood found on the offending weapon seized from the appellant and his wearing apparel was of human. According to him eye witnesses cannot be said to be partisan or interested one. He says that injured person will not commit any mistake to identify the real assailant. Similarly, PW-2 the cousin of PW-1 being the eye witness cannot be said to be an interested witness. Anyone can be competent witness under law whether he himself is the victim or relation of the victim unless there is a case of mutual rivalry, quarrel or animosity against the accused. In this case there is no suggestion either to that effect. (12) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I have read the evidences of both oral and documentary and noted the material evidences and gone through the judgment and order of conviction of the learned Sessions Judge. The points for consideration in this appeal is as to whether; There has been evidence with the standard of beyond reasonable doubt to record conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of I.P.C. or not. The points for consideration in this appeal is as to whether; There has been evidence with the standard of beyond reasonable doubt to record conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of I.P.C. or not. It appears from the trend of cross examination and substance of the argument of learned Counsel for the appellant that the ground for upsetting the judgment is that there has been serious contradiction in the evidences of PW-1 and PW-2, who are the eye witnesses, so much so that it renders unbelievable by any man of ordinary prudence. It also appears from the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant and also in the cross examination put to the witnesses of the prosecution that there was absolutely improbability of the appellant being present at the time of occurrence. It is also urged that seizure list was not prepared by the police in accordance with law. (13) On reading and considering rival contention of both the parties, the following factual aspects are not at all disputed :- (1) The PW-1 namely Babu Lall was injured and had sustained three injuries. (2) He had been treated in the G. B. Pant Hospital for over 15 days, because local hospital could not render proper treatment, having regard to nature of injury. Thus question remains who had inflicted injuries, is it appellant or some one else. (14) I have painstakingly read the analysis of evidence of the learned Trial Judge, I find that the learned Trial Judge correctly appreciated and analysed the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 who are ocular witnesses. PW-1 is the victim who had sustained injuries, He has said in his testimony that the accused hit behind his head with the sharp weapon namely (Dah) which was being carried by him at that time and kept in his waist. Second and third blows were stuck on the back of his person. He has also said that having received the first blow behind his head, he fell down on the ground and then the appellant hit twice or thrice with the said weapon leaving the PW-1 with injuries and then he ran away from the place of occurrence. Second and third blows were stuck on the back of his person. He has also said that having received the first blow behind his head, he fell down on the ground and then the appellant hit twice or thrice with the said weapon leaving the PW-1 with injuries and then he ran away from the place of occurrence. (15) He was cross examined thoroughly and it appears from the cross examination that of course he could not specifically mentioned the date of occurrence but could mention the approximate time, because of this failure his evidence is sought to be termed to be contradictory. I feel that injured person who is cited as witness is supposed to tell whether he has sustained injuries or not. After having sustained injuries it is unlikely for him to remember the exact date of the incident particularly when he was unconscious immediately after injury being inflicted. This omission in my view is natural and it does not affect much to the credibility of this witnesss version. Moreover he was not the informant or complainant witness. It is absolutely contrary to human nature and conduct that injured person will falsely implicate any person leaving real person. (16) He has also testified that the motive for assaulting to kill him in the above manner was that he had informed the police about carrying on illicit liquor business illegally distilling at his place and as such he was harassed by police so as retaliatory measure he attempted to kill him. (17) The evidence of PW-2, another ocular witness being the informant and complainant of this case has vividly and minute details has said the incident. He said in corroboration of the evidence of PW-1 that on 17th March, 2000 at about 4-5 pm, the incident took place he has also said that the appellant with an intention to kill him, hit on his back of the head with a sharp cutting metal weapon (Dah). On having received this injury, the PW-1 fell down on the ground. The appellant inflicted blow twice or thrice on the back of the person of PW-1 and thereafter he fled. He also corroborated the testimony of PW-1 about appellants intention to attempt to kill the PW-1 that in order to take revenge for informing the police about his illicit liquor business. The appellant inflicted blow twice or thrice on the back of the person of PW-1 and thereafter he fled. He also corroborated the testimony of PW-1 about appellants intention to attempt to kill the PW-1 that in order to take revenge for informing the police about his illicit liquor business. I did not find any significant impact of cross examination on this testimony. (18) It is suggested that the son of PW-1 who was also present at the time of occurrence was not examined. I am of the view as rightly recorded by the learned Trial Judge that it is the quality not the quantity of the evidence. If one of the several person is competent and good enough to testify the case, other persons are not required to cite as witnesses. It will appear from the evidence of PW-12 that the appellant was arrested by him at police station when he surrendered at Pahargaon Police Station at 21-05 hrs. He surrendered himself with the offending weapon and the same was seized by preparing seizure list and the same was signed by PW-3 and PW-4. He has also put his signature in the seizure list which was proved by him. He was suggested that Babu Lall and Sonu could not be present at the time of seizure, as it was impossible for Sonu to reach the police station from G. B. Pant Hospital at that time because of the distance. In view of the oral testimony of Sonu, Babu Lall and PW-12, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that seizure memo was not prepared properly and it was not signed. Significantly the seizure memo was signed by the appellant accused also and signature has been put by PW-2. There has been no suggestion that the aforesaid signature was obtained illegally, nor even factum of obtaining signature is denied by putting any suggestion. PW-12 has said that wearing apparels which were at the time of occurrence, were seized from the appellant. at the police station when he voluntarily put them off and then he wore other wearing apparel. The wearing apparel of PW-1 was also seized and the same was also found to be blood stained as it was found in those of the appellant. at the police station when he voluntarily put them off and then he wore other wearing apparel. The wearing apparel of PW-1 was also seized and the same was also found to be blood stained as it was found in those of the appellant. The said wearing apparel as well as blood stain and offending weapon were sent for serological test and reports were obtained and the same were exhibited and was taken into consideration as evidence. (19) Under such circumstances, I think that prosecution has been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt rather any doubt, It is also contended that in view of the evidence of PW-7, who conducted raid to apprehend the appellant for distilling illicit liquor at about 4.30 pm, it was impossible for the appellant to be present at the time of occurrence to assault or to inflict injury. I have carefully gone through the evidence of PW-7 and find that he has said that on 17th March, 2000 at 16.50 hrs during raid he found the appellant was distilling illicit liquor and having seen him approaching to assault him he fled from that place. So it is clear that at 16.50 hrs he was not present at the place of distillation of illicit liquor and then PW-7 was searching to apprehend the appellant. The evidence of PW-2 is very clear that the incident took place in between 4,30 and 5.00 pm, so it was quite possible having left that place at 4.50 pm to reach at the place of occurrence to attack PW-1 at 5.00 pm. In my view the evidence of PW-7 and PW-8 rather suggest that it was possible for the appellant to reach at the place where the PW-1 on his way back to home and also to corroborate the fact that there has been police raid because of this there was reason for the appellant entertaining idea about police raid because of complaint of the PW-1. Next question comes the nature of injury for which the aforesaid punishment was justified or not. Two doctors have submitted report and deposed before the Court. Two doctors had given their opinion that injury No.2 is very serious one and this could be done with the sharp cutting metal weapon like Dah, which was exhibited and shown to them. Next question comes the nature of injury for which the aforesaid punishment was justified or not. Two doctors have submitted report and deposed before the Court. Two doctors had given their opinion that injury No.2 is very serious one and this could be done with the sharp cutting metal weapon like Dah, which was exhibited and shown to them. The extent of injury No.2 is such that it injured occipital bone and the brain matter was protruding, therefore the PW-1 was unconscious and he was not in a position to make statement in the hospital. He had to be operated upon and he was treated for 15 days to recover from illness. X-ray photo has been exhibited and, report with photo show that there has been a fracture on occipital bone. Thus there would be no doubt that injury No. 2 was very grievous and serious in nature and, had he not been brought to G. B. Pant Hospital the aforesaid injury would have been fatal. (20) Under these circumstances the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is not acceptable. I find that there has been substantial force of submission of Mr. Mandal that the evidence with little contradiction is natural. As the case was tried after four years it is quite normal that there must be some degree of contradiction, and omission and these are not vital to the case. As far as the contention of delay of four hours in lodging an FIR is concerned he rightly speaks that it is not a delay at all because it was quite natural that everybody would be busy to save the life of an injured person who had been seriously wounded. Complaint was made then and there and thereafter some preliminary steps had to be taken before any FIR is formally drawn up. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Mandal that delay has been sufficiently explained. It is thus established that none other than appellant inflicted the said injuries one of which was surely inflicted aiming at to do away with him. (21) The learned Trial Judge, I hold unhesitatingly, rightly held him guilty. Therefore, I uphold the findings and recording of conviction and sentence. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.