Judgment :- Kanchan Chakraborty, J. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 29th March, 2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Jalpaiguri in Sessions Case No. 266 of 2008 thereby convicting the appellant Subal Roy for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-with default clause Mr. Mukhopadhyay, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant made, in fact, two-fold argument. Firstly, according to him, there is a major discrepancy as to the date of incident. According to the First Information Report, Mr. Mukhopadhyay contended, the alleged incident had taken place on 03.03.2008 at 9.30 a.m. But, according to the statement of witnesses, the alleged incident had taken place on 02.03.2008 at 9.00 a.m. and, secondly, the P.W. 6, the only eyewitness, was not believed by the learned Trial Court, but conviction was recorded on the basis of the testimony of other witnesses who were not ocular witnesses and had not seen the incident. One Gajen Basak lodged one First Information Report with the Dhupguri Police Station on 03.03.2008 at 17.25 hours alleging therein that on 03.03.2008 at about 9.00 a.m. when his son Bablu Basak (P.W. 2) had gone out of his house for the purpose of hawking, the appellant hit him on his head with a sharp chopper. Bablu fell down on the ground in bleeding condition. The appellant Subal would have killed Bablu if was not resisted by the neighbourers. Bablu was taken to Dhupguri Hospital firstly and therefrom referred to Jalpaiguri Sadar Hospital. On the basis of the said First Information Report, Dhupguri Police Station Case No. 67 of 2008 dated 03.03.2008 was started against Subal Roy under Sections 326/307 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was investigated into and ended in a charge sheet under Sections 324/307 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant arrayed to face charges under Sections 324/307 of the Indian Penal Code. He pleaded not guilty to the charges and, accordingly, the trial commenced. In course of trial, twelve witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Rough Sketch Map of the place of occurrence, Injury Report, etc. were admitted into evidence and marked exhibits on behalf of the prosecution. He pleaded not guilty to the charges and, accordingly, the trial commenced. In course of trial, twelve witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Rough Sketch Map of the place of occurrence, Injury Report, etc. were admitted into evidence and marked exhibits on behalf of the prosecution. No witness was examined on behalf of the appellant in course of trial. In course of examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant simply stated that he was innocent. In course of investigation one blood stained vest and one iron chopper were seized by the Investigating Officer. In this case, the best witness would be the person injured, i.e., Bablu Basak. Bablu Basak was examined as P.W. 2. He had stated that on 02.03.2008 at about 9.00 a.m. while he was going to hawk goods by riding his bicycle, in front of the house of one Anjuma Begam (P.W. 8), the appellant Subal Roy attacked him with a daw and, as a result, he sustained injury in the back portion of his neck extended to his jaws. He fell down on the ground. The appellant attacked him again on his head with the daw resulting in blood injuries on his head. The appellant again tried to attack the P.W. 2, when Apu Roy alias Bhabesh Roy interfered and saved him. He became senseless and regained sense at Jalpaiguri Sadar Hospital. He narrated the incident to his father on the next date in detail. He also stated that due to assault, his wearing apparels were stained with blood. He had to undergo medical treatment in the Sadar Hospital at Jalpaiguri for 16 days. In his cross-examination, his statement to the Investigating Officer of the case was controverted and nothing more. The statement he made in his examination-in-chief remained practically unchallenged. In the instant case, the star witness would be the P.W. 6, Bhabesh Ray. According to the P.W. 2, Bhabesh Ray interfered and saved him at the time of incident. The P.W. 6 stated that the said incident had taken place on 02.03.2008 at 9.00 a.m. Hearing a sound of falling of bicycle, he turned and found appellant Subal to chase Bablu with a sharp cutting daw. He found Bablu fell down and Subal, the appellant, started hitting Bablu with the said daw. The P.W. 6 stated that the said incident had taken place on 02.03.2008 at 9.00 a.m. Hearing a sound of falling of bicycle, he turned and found appellant Subal to chase Bablu with a sharp cutting daw. He found Bablu fell down and Subal, the appellant, started hitting Bablu with the said daw. He rushed to the place of occurrence and resisted Subal when he was trying to hit Bablu again for the third time. He snatched the daw from Subal and separated them. Due to assault, Bablu sustained bleeding injuries on his head, neck and become senseless. He was taken to the hospital for treatment. In his cross-examination he denied the suggestion put to him that he did not witness the incident and no such incident had taken place but he stated that he was not examined by the Investigating Officer of the case. The learned Trial Court did not believe the testimony of the P.W. 6 simply because the Investigating Officer of the case did not examine him in course of investigation. This ground for disbelieving the direct testimony of the P.W. 6 does not appear to be sound and correct. There is no rule of law that each and every witness produced by the prosecution for recording evidence on behalf of the prosecution are supposed to be examined by the Investigating Officer of the case. When the P.W. 2 has categorically stated that he was saved because the P.W. 6 intervened and the P.W. 6 corroborated that fact by giving a vivid description of the incident which tallied with the statement of the P.W. 2, there was no reason for the learned Trial Court to discard the entire evidence of P.W. 6 simply because his statement was not recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. It is not that the P.W. 6 was not cited as a charge sheet witness. He has been shown as charge sheet witness. Therefore, when a man was shown as charge sheet witness, deposed in Court and supported the prosecution case which remained unchallenged, there was no legal impediment for the Trial Court to accept his deposition and rely on his testimony. I do not accept the proposition of Mr. Mukhopadhyay on this issue. He has been shown as charge sheet witness. Therefore, when a man was shown as charge sheet witness, deposed in Court and supported the prosecution case which remained unchallenged, there was no legal impediment for the Trial Court to accept his deposition and rely on his testimony. I do not accept the proposition of Mr. Mukhopadhyay on this issue. I also do no share the view taken by the learned Trial Court as far as the acceptability of the testimony of the P.W. 6 is concerned. The statement of the injured was supported by the eyewitness P.W. 6 and their statements in their examination-in-chief remained unchallenged. Both of them had stated that the incident alleged had taken place on 02.03.2008 at 9.00 a.m. Besides them, P.W. 4 appears to be a witness to the incident. He had stated that on 02.03.2008 at about 9.00 a.m. Bablu Basak was going to hawk his goods riding a bicycle. The P.W. 4 heard a sound of falling a bicycle. He noticed that Subal chasing Bablu Basak with a daw. This portion of his evidence tallies with the statement of P.W. 6, who also stated that he found Subal chasing Bablu with a daw. Although the P.W. 4 did not witness the appellant to hit Bablu with daw due to gathering of local people, but his evidence to the effect that he heard a sound of falling of bicycle and noticed appellant to chase Bablu with a daw and subsequently found Bablu with bleeding injuries on his neck, obviously a good piece of evidence which has supported the prosecution case as well as the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 6. The learned Trial Court found no ground to disbelieve the statement of P.W. 4 rightly. The P.W. 5 is another man of the locality. He has stated that on 02.03.2008 at about 09.00 a.m. on hearing a hulla, he came out of his house and rushed to the place of occurrence and found Bablu with bleeding injury. He found Subal on the spot also who was apprehended by the local people. This particular state-of-affairs narrated by the P.W. 5 obviously strengthened the prosecution case. It is true that what he stated other than this, are hearsay evidence, but that portion of evidence cannot be discarded. The P.W. 7 is also a local people. He found Subal on the spot also who was apprehended by the local people. This particular state-of-affairs narrated by the P.W. 5 obviously strengthened the prosecution case. It is true that what he stated other than this, are hearsay evidence, but that portion of evidence cannot be discarded. The P.W. 7 is also a local people. He found Bablu lying with bleeding injuries on his head and neck. But, he heard about the incident of assault on Bablu by the appellant. That portion of the evidence was not accepted by the learned Trial Court as being hearsay evidence. I find that the P.W. 7 has not stated who informed him that the appellant assaulted Bablu with daw. Naturally, the learned Trial Court did not accept that portion of the evidence of the P.W. 7. The P.W. 8, Anjuma Begam, is another local resident, whose name has been stated by the P.W. 2. She stated that she came to the place of occurrence and found Bablu Basak lying on katcha road with bleeding injury on his head and neck. In her cross-examination she also stated that she narrated that fact to the police. She, however, did not witness the incident and heard it from somebody whose name she could not disclose. The P.W. 10 is not an ocular witness but was reported about the incident by Bhabesh (P.W. 6), Sachin Bairagi (P.W. 4) and one Kalinath Roy. However, P.Ws. 4 and 6 have not stated anywhere that they informed the incident to P.W. 10. He had stated that he sent Bablu to Dhupguri Hospital wherefrom Bablu was referred to Jalpaiguri Sadar Hospital. The P.W. 11 is the Investigating Officer of the case. He had stated that he visited the place of occurrence, prepared sketch map and index (Exbt. 3/1), examined available witnesses, collected injury report, seized the offending weapon, i.e., the daw with blood stained cloth in course of investigation. The offending weapon, i.e., the daw was placed before the learned Trial Court, which was admitted into evidence and marked material Exbt. 1. The blood-stained vest seized by the P.W. 11 was also admitted into evidence and marked material Exbt. II. The P.W. 11 was not questioned about seizure of blood stained vest and the offending weapon, i.e., the daw. This portion of the factual aspect as well as the evidence remained unchallenged in course of trial. 1. The blood-stained vest seized by the P.W. 11 was also admitted into evidence and marked material Exbt. II. The P.W. 11 was not questioned about seizure of blood stained vest and the offending weapon, i.e., the daw. This portion of the factual aspect as well as the evidence remained unchallenged in course of trial. The P.W. 12 is the doctor who examined Bablu Basak on 03.03.2008. He stated that the patient had the history of physical assault. He was admitted in Jalpaiguri Sadar Hospital and stayed there from 03.03.2008 to 16.03.2008. He had deep cut injury over left parietal area of scalp measuring 3 cm X 1cm x 0.5 cm and another injury at soft tissue involving left mandible area. He identified the injury report prepared and signed by him (Exbt. 5). He had given opinion also that if someone is assaulted with a weapon like Daw, such type of injury might occur. In his cross-examination he also opined that if someone falls on a sharp cutting weapon at the time of his movement, such type of injury might occur. It may be taken note of the fact that the doctor did not find one injury only. There were two injuries on the person of injured Bablu. Therefore, the story of getting injury by falling on sharp cutting weapon goes because one is not supposed to fall twice on the same sharp cutting weapon in the same manner at the same place and get two injuries at two different parts of the body. It is not believable. Therefore, his first opinion in course of examination-in-chief appears to be acceptable. As far as the alleged incident is concerned, the learned Trial Court found that in all probabilities such incident had actually taken place. This Court also likes to share the view of the learned Trial Court. The evidence on record leaves no room of doubt that the appellant caused hurt to Bablu on his head and backside of the neck with a weapon like daw (material Exbt. 1). Now, the question comes in is as to the controversy regarding the date of incident. It is true that in the First Information Report (Exbt. 1) the date of incident has been mentioned as 03.03.2008. The doctor, who examined Bablu, stated that he examined the injured Bablu Basak on 03.03.2008. The Exbt. 1). Now, the question comes in is as to the controversy regarding the date of incident. It is true that in the First Information Report (Exbt. 1) the date of incident has been mentioned as 03.03.2008. The doctor, who examined Bablu, stated that he examined the injured Bablu Basak on 03.03.2008. The Exbt. 5 contains a note of history of assault on 03.03.2008 at 9.00 a.m. The examination by the P.W. 12 was done at 07.10 a.m. on 03.03.2008. This injury report (Exbt. 5) makes it abundantly clear that there was a mistake either on the part of the doctor or on the part of the person who narrated the history of assault to him regarding date and time of the incident. The alleged incident had taken place far away from Jalpaiguri Sadar Hospital . It had taken place at 9.00 a.m. It was not possible for the doctor to examine the said injured man on the same date at 7.10 a.m. The mistake is apparent on the face of the Exbt. 5. Now the question is where the accused should get benefit of this mistake or not. I must say that this mistake does not strike at the root of the prosecution case. The substratum of the prosecution case has been established by sufficient and reliable evidence. The First Information Report (Exbt. 1) shows the incident had taken place on 03.03.2008 at 9.00 a.m. The Exbt. 1 was written by P.W. 3, who was not an ocular witness. He stated that on 03.03.2008 P.W. 1 came and requested him to write down a written complaint and as per his instruction, he wrote down the Exbt. 1. It was on 03.03.2008 when the First Information Report was written. There is every possibility of making mistake by the scribe of the First Information Report in mentioning the date of occurrence in the First Information Report as he was not an ocular witness and the First Information was not written by P.W. 1 himself. The P.W. 1 made it clear in his cross-examination that the incident took place on 02.03.2008 and he submitted written complaint on 03.03.2008. Therefore, the question of genuinety of the date of incident raised by Mr. Mukhopadhyay, the learned advocate for the appellant, can well be answered in the above fact situation of the case as discussed above. The P.W. 1 made it clear in his cross-examination that the incident took place on 02.03.2008 and he submitted written complaint on 03.03.2008. Therefore, the question of genuinety of the date of incident raised by Mr. Mukhopadhyay, the learned advocate for the appellant, can well be answered in the above fact situation of the case as discussed above. The P.W. 1, the lodger of the First Information Report, has stated in course of his cross-examination that the incident had taken place on 02.03.2008. The First Information Report was written on 03.03.2008. It appears clearly from the statement of the P.W. 3 that First Information Report was written on 03.03.2008, not on 02.03.2008. The injured and the eyewitnesses P.Ws. 4 and 6 have stated categorically that the incident had taken place on 02.03.2008 at 9.00 a.m. The Exbt. 5 makes it clear that the P.W. 12 made a mistake while writing the date and time of the incident. It was not possible for him to examine the injured at 7.10 a.m. on 03.03.2008 when the injury was caused on the same date at 9.00 a.m. In all probabilities, it can well be accepted that there was a mistake in mentioning the date of incident in the First Information Report as well as by the P.W. 12 in the Exbt. 5. The learned Trial Court, in my opinion, appreciated the entire evidence, facts and circumstances of the case with great care and attention. The mistake apparent on the face of the Exbt. 5, was a trivial in nature and has not affected the prosecution case in any manner. I reiterate that barring that apparent mistake, the substratum of the prosecution case has been established by consistent, cogent and reliable evidence. Therefore, I do not accept the contention of Mr. Mukhopadhyay on this point also. Mr. Ganguly, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-state of West Bengal contended that the judgment impugned is based on clinching evidence and does not require to be upset in the appeal. I fully agree with him and find no reason to upset the judgment impugned. In view of the discussion above, the appeal fails. The judgment impugned is affirmed. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of without any order as to cost. Interim order, if there be any, stands vacated. I fully agree with him and find no reason to upset the judgment impugned. In view of the discussion above, the appeal fails. The judgment impugned is affirmed. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of without any order as to cost. Interim order, if there be any, stands vacated. Department is directed to send the Lower Court Records along with a copy of this judgment to the learned Court concerned immediately.