Judgment R.B. Misra, J. The present appeal has been preferred by the convict/appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 30.9.2005, passed by learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur, H.P., in Sessions Trial No.3 of 2003/47 of 2004, convicting the appellant/accused/convict under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code sentencing him to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and sentencing him to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- for offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fine, the appellant/convict was to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 years and 1 year respectively, however, both the sentences were to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant Ishwar Dass was having litigation of land with accused and in that respect quarrel had taken place between them. On 1.9.2002, while the complainant was going to his house from Kuthera and had reached in village Dhulana Brahmana by short cut at about 4:30 PM, the accused came from the bushes with a dagger (Khukhri) in his hand and attacked him on his neck, back and chest, as a result of which he fell down and blood started oozing. On hearing the cries of the victim, many villagers assembled there and the victim was taken to Zonal Hospital, Hamirpur for treatment. On information by Dr.Ashok Kaushal, police arrived and Rapat No.21 Ext.PW-12/A was recorded. An application (Ext.PW-1/A) was moved by ASI Swami Ram to the Medical Officer for obtaining the opinion of the doctor to record the statement of the injured/victim. ASI Swami Ram recorded the statement (Ext.PW-2/A) of the complainant/injured Ishwar Dass. In that respect, F.I.R. Ext.PW-12/B was recorded. Injured/victim was medically examined vide MLC Ext.PW-1/D and for treatment, the victim was referred to IGMC, Shimla. Accused was arrested and recoveries from the spot were made and after investigation, the accused was charged for the aforesaid offences. 3. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 16 prosecution witnesses, whereas, accused through his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied the prosecution case and the accused also took defence that for land dispute he has falsely been implicated by the complainant, as such, did not plead any evidence in defence. 4. 3. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 16 prosecution witnesses, whereas, accused through his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied the prosecution case and the accused also took defence that for land dispute he has falsely been implicated by the complainant, as such, did not plead any evidence in defence. 4. PW-1 (Dr.Ashok Kaushal) had examined injured Ishwar Dass (PW-2) and has noted the injuries and has also opined as follows:- “1. An incised wound with clear cut margins gaped diamond shape placed horizontally in the occipital region measuring 15 cm in length with varied width and deep to the wound. The underlined wound appears to be normal clinically. Fresh blood oozing from the wound. Advised X-Ray skull. 2. An incised wound with clear cut margin extending (right) occipital Temporal region through the right pinna up to zigomatic bone prominence. Right pinna split a part fresh blood oozing from the wound size is 20 cm in length with variable width due to gaping of wound margins. Advised X-Ray skull. 3. An incised wound with clear cut margins on left scapularu region seven cm in length diamond shaped extending deep to the muscles. Underlined wounds normal clinically. 4. An incised wound placed obliquely with clear cut margin on the right scapularu region measuring 20 cm in length diamond shaped muscle deep with normal underline wounds normal clinically. Fresh blood oozing from the wound. Underlined muscles are exposed. 5. An incised wound placed almost vertical near the lumber spine region measuring 5 cm in length diamond shaped with clear cut margin under line muscles exposed and blood was oozing from wound. Underlined wounds appear to be normal clinically. 6. An incised wound almost transversally measuring three cms in length middle of front chest (Sternum) spindle shaped. Oozing fresh blood. Underlined wounds appear to be normal. All the injuries are simple in nature. On the application of Police Ext.PW-1/C, I gave the final opinion with regard to the nature of injuries. I perused all the record pertaining to the treatment of injuries of Ishwar Dass. My revised opinion is as under:- With reference to the letter Ext.PW/C requesting for the revised final opinion on the M.L.C. No.607. So from the findings of the M.L.C. No.607 and X-Ray report of Radiologist the final opinion has been given as simple. I perused all the record pertaining to the treatment of injuries of Ishwar Dass. My revised opinion is as under:- With reference to the letter Ext.PW/C requesting for the revised final opinion on the M.L.C. No.607. So from the findings of the M.L.C. No.607 and X-Ray report of Radiologist the final opinion has been given as simple. Although if not treated immediately doe to bleeding from the wounds, it could have been dangerous to life. PW-1 has opined that the injuries were grievous in nature and caused with sharp edged weapon and were possible with blow of Khukhri Ext.P-1 and injuries No.1 to 6 were on the vital part of the body.” 5. PW-2/(complainant Ishwar Dass), in support of the prosecution case, has stated that on 1.9.2002, while he was going to his house from Kuthera on foot and had hardly reached Dulana Brahman village, at about 4:30 PM, accused came rushing from the bushes and had attacked him with dagger (Khukhri) thereby he sustained injuries on his head, chest and backside of his body and on his cries accused ran away along with dagger and on hearing his cries, many people have assembled there. PW-2 has further stated that his wearing clothes i.e. shirt and Baniyan were stained with blood, which were taken into possession by the police. Dagger (Khukhri) Ext.P-1 was also taken into possession and PW-2 has acknowledged that with this dagger he was injured. In cross-examination, PW-2 has admitted that land dispute was pending between him and the accused in the High Court and he has got strained relations with the accused and they were not in visiting terms even at the time of death and in other social functions. PW-2 has, however, denied the suggestion that he is in the habit of making complaints against the accused and has falsely implicated him. The argument of the defence that in natural course, if one is being attacked by a single person, he would scuffle and resist and the injuries would not be caused to the victim. Such defence appears to be unreasonable to us as if a person is attacked suddenly by a dagger (Khukhri) successively receiving many blows, the victim might not have availed the occasion to resist such assailant. Such defence appears to be unreasonable to us as if a person is attacked suddenly by a dagger (Khukhri) successively receiving many blows, the victim might not have availed the occasion to resist such assailant. Indisputably, PW-2 had been injured and was very well recognizing the assailant, as such, why PW-2 would implicate the accused/convict only leaving aside the real assailant. The injuries on PW-2 are also corroborated by the statement of PW-3/(Subhash Chand), who has stated that at about 4:30 PM, on 1.9.2002, he heard cries and after hearing such cries when he went to the spot he had seen injuries on the person of PW-2 from which blood was oozing out. Though PW-3 has been declared hostile, however, even the testimony of hostile witness, to this extent, cannot be ignored. 6. PW-4/(Bidhi Chand) had proved the injuries on the person of PW-2, who, after hearing 2 – 3 cries, at about 4:30 PM, on 1.9.2002, went to the spot near the house of Subhash Chand Sharma and had observed PW-2 in the pool of blood and injuries on his head, back and also on the front side of the body. On inquiry, PW-4 was told by PW-2 that injuries have been inflicted by accused Pritam Chand with dagger (Khukhri). In view of the testimony of PW-4, Subhash Chand and Savitri Devi had also arrived to the spot, thereafter a vehicle was arranged and the victim was taken to hospital for treatment. PW-4 has admitted in cross-examination that litigation between accused and complainant/injured was going on. PW-4 has, however, denied the suggestion of defence that PW-2 had not disclosed the name of the assailant to him as when PW-2 has very specifically divulged that the injuries were inflicted to him by the accused, as such, the testimony of PW-4 cannot be disbelieved. 7. PW-5/(Jagat Ram) and PW-6/(Shiv Parkash), Head Constables, have witnessed the recovery. PW-5 has stated that the shirt of the accused, having blood stains on it, was taken into possession by the police vide Memo Ext.PW-5/B in his presence which was signed by Rattan Chand and the accused. 7. PW-5/(Jagat Ram) and PW-6/(Shiv Parkash), Head Constables, have witnessed the recovery. PW-5 has stated that the shirt of the accused, having blood stains on it, was taken into possession by the police vide Memo Ext.PW-5/B in his presence which was signed by Rattan Chand and the accused. Similarly, PW-6/(Shiv Parkash) has also stated that dagger (Khukhri) Ext.P-1 had been produced by the accused before the Police in his presence and its sketch Ext.PW-6/B was prepared and was sealed with Seal ‘M’ and was taken into possession vide Memo Ext.PW-6/A. The shirt of the accused was sent to F.S.L. Junga and as per report of F.S.L. Junga, blood of the blood group of the injured was found on the shirt of the accused as reflected in F.S.L. report Ext.PW-11/B. Even the six injuries suffered by PW-2/injured have further been proved by Dr.Dhruv Sharma. Even the fracture on the person of injured is further proved in reference to statement of PW-10 Dr.N.K.Mahindru which was further reiterated in his cross-examination by PW-10 by stating that there was fracture of temporal bone of PW-2. Other fracture on the person of PW-2 is further proved in reference to the statement of PW-15 Dr.Sanjeev Sharma who has stated on oath that on 28.10.2002 when PW-2/injured was referred by Dr.Desh Raj Sharma for conducting C.T.Scan of his ears and head, on which he conducted the C.T.Scan of the injured and after examination he found fracture of mandible right side and occipital bone in the mid line about which he has given report Ext.PW-15/A. 8. PW-11/(Inspector Hukam Chand Thakur), has partially investigated the case. PW-12/(MHC Ramesh Chand) has sent the sample and clothes of PW-2/injured and the accused to F.S.L. Junga for examination. PW-13 (HHC Deep Chand) had taken the articles to F.S.L. Bharari on 9.9.2002. PW-14/(ASI Swami Ram), was Investigating Officer, who had moved application Ext.PW-1/A to PW-1 who declared that PW-2/injured was fit to give statement as per opinion Ext.PW-1/B, thereafter, PW-14 had recorded the statement of PW-2. 9. PW-16/(Inspector Mehar Chand), main investigating officer, had given sequence of events, apprehended the accused, prepared the site plan Ext.PW-16/A and has taken into possession blood stained soil, grass, small stones from the spot and had sealed the same with seal ‘A’. 9. PW-16/(Inspector Mehar Chand), main investigating officer, had given sequence of events, apprehended the accused, prepared the site plan Ext.PW-16/A and has taken into possession blood stained soil, grass, small stones from the spot and had sealed the same with seal ‘A’. PW-16 had also recovered dagger (Khukhri) Ext.P-1 from the accused and has taken into possession the same vide Memo Ext.PW-6/A and prepared a sketch Ext.PW-6/B. 10. Though we notice that there are some deficiencies in the investigation, however, in view of the verdict of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dhanaj Singh alias Shera & Others versus State of Punjab, 2004 Cri.L.J.1807, the defective investigation cannot vitiate the prosecution case. Similarly also, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paras Yadav & Others versus State of Bihar, (1999) 2 SCC 126 , the lapse or omission on the part of the Investigating Agency cannot make the prosecution case fatal. Deficiencies in investigation by way of omissions and lapses on the part of the investigating agency cannot in themselves justify a total rejection of prosecution case in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sheo Shankar Singh versus State of Jharkhand & Another, (2011) 3 SCC 654 . 11. The plea of the defence that non-examination of Savitri Devi and Jagat Ram, who reached the spot, shall vitiate the prosecution case, in our considered view, the prosecution case cannot be disbelieved if a few prosecution witnesses have not been examined, whereas, the prosecution has successfully been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt in reference to the statements of other supporting prosecution witnesses and material on record. 12. Ext.P-1 is Dagger/(Khukhri), the sketch of which is exhibited as Ext.PW-6/B and the same is 42 cms in length and its sharp part is 4 cms in width and is a weapon of dangerous nature for which licence was to be obtained, whereas, the appellant/convict was not in possession of the relevant licence for the purpose. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant/convict has argued that by not disclosing the name of the assailant, more specifically, in view of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chikkarangaiah & Ors. Versus State of Karnataka, (2009) 17 SCC 497 , the testimony of PW-2 cannot be believed. 14. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant/convict has argued that by not disclosing the name of the assailant, more specifically, in view of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chikkarangaiah & Ors. Versus State of Karnataka, (2009) 17 SCC 497 , the testimony of PW-2 cannot be believed. 14. The stand of the defence that PW-2/victim/injured did not reveal to PW-1 (Dr.Ashok Kaushal) the name of the assailant, in our considered view, the prosecution case cannot be said to be fatal when PW-1 himself in his cross-examination had stated that he did not enquire from PW-2 the name of the assailant. In our considered view, there is no requirement that the victim/injured invariably has to disclose the name of the assailant to the attending doctor concerned. Here also PW-1 did not enquire the name of the assailant, therefore, by not disclosing the name of the assailant, the prosecution case cannot be said to be fatal in view of the verdict of Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.Babu & Others versus State of A.P., (1994) 1 SCC 388 . In our considered view, the statement of injured PW-2 is corroborated by PW-4 who had immediately reached the spot, as such, PW-4 is the most reliable witness and his testimony cannot be brushed aside/overlooked in view of the observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramashray Yadav & Others versus State of Bihar, (2005) 13 SCC 468 . The relevant Paragraphs are extracted as below:- “7. PW.5 Arjun Prasad has deposed that he was returning from village Tamara at about 3.30 p.m. on 10.4.1998 and when he reached near river Lehra Dak, he heard sound of several gunshots. He along with others ran towards that side and saw a person lying badly injured in Mahua Khandha and PW.12 Sidheshwar Prasad was standing there. On enquiry, he told him that on account of non-payment of "rangdari tax", appellants Ramashray Yadav, Tanikan Yadav and Rajdeo Yadav had killed his brother Ram Parvesh Yadav by firing upon him. PW.5 had not seen the incident but he heard the sound of gunshots and rushed to the place of occurrence where he saw the deceased lying in a badly injured condition and Sidheshwar Prasad who was standing nearby narrated the incident to him. It needs examination whether the testimony of PW.5 Arjun Prasad can be used as a corroborative piece of evidence. 8. It needs examination whether the testimony of PW.5 Arjun Prasad can be used as a corroborative piece of evidence. 8. Section 157 of the Evidence Act reads as under: "157. In order to corroborate the testimony of a witness, any former statement made by such witness relating to the same fact, at or about the time when the fact took place, or before any authority legally competent to investigate the fact, may be proved." The import of this Section was examined and explained in considerable detail in State of Tamil Nadu v. Suresh & Anr. (1998) 2 SCC 372 and paragraphs 26 to 28 of the reports are being reproduced below: "26. The section envisages two categories of statements of witnesses which can be used for corroboration. First is the statement made by a witness to any person "at or about the time when the fact took place". The second is the statement made by him to any authority legally bound to investigate the fact. We notice that if the statement is made to an authority competent to investigate the fact such statement gains admissibility, no matter that it was made long after the incident. But if the statement was made to a non-authority it loses its probative value due to lapse of time. Then the question is, within how much time the statement should have been made? If it was made contemporaneous with the occurrence the statement has a greater value as res gestae and then it is substantive evidence. But if it was made only after some interval of time the statement loses its probative utility as res gestae, still it is usable, though only for a lesser use. 27. What is meant by the expression "at or about the time when the fact took place"? There can be a narrow view that unless such a statement was made soon after the occurrence it cannot be used for corroboration. A broader view is that even if such statement was made within a reasonable proximity of time still such statement can be used for corroboration. The legislature would not have intended to limit the time factor to close proximity though a long distance of time would deprive it of its utility even for corroboration purposes. 28. A broader view is that even if such statement was made within a reasonable proximity of time still such statement can be used for corroboration. The legislature would not have intended to limit the time factor to close proximity though a long distance of time would deprive it of its utility even for corroboration purposes. 28. We think that the expression "at or about the time when the fact took place" in Section 157 of the Evidence Act should be understood in the context according to the facts and circumstances of each case. The mere fact that there was an intervening period of a few days, in a given case, may not be sufficient to exclude the statement from the use envisaged in Section 157 of the Act. The test to be adopted, therefore, is this: Did the witness have the opportunity to concoct or to have been tutored? In this context the observation of Vivian Bose, J. in Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1852 SC 54, is apposite: "There can be no hard and fast rule about the 'at or about' condition in Section 157. The main test is whether the statement was made as early as can reasonably be expected in the circumstances of the case and before there was opportunity for tutoring or concoction." (emphasis in original)" 15. On analysis of the prosecution witnesses and materials on record, in our considered view, the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur, had correctly arrived at the findings that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and in our considered view also the prosecution has successfully been able to bring home the guilt to the accused. In the facts and circumstances and keeping in view the gravity of offence, the sentence imposed is reasonable, as such, we do not find any scope for interference in the judgment and verdict of the learned Presiding Officer, as such, the appeal, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.