ORAL JUDGMENT Per: HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE DHARNIDHAR JHA, J. 1. This appeal, filed by the solitary appellant, arises out of the judgment of conviction dated 17.12.1990 by which the appellant was held guilty of committing offences under sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was heard on sentence on 18.12.1990 by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, who had delivered the judgment impugned herein in Sessions Case No. 357 of 1987/ T. R. No. 45 of 1990 and was directed by the order of sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life as also for 10 years respectively after having been found guilty of committing offences under sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentenced were directed to run concurrently. 2. The incident had taken place on 29.10.1986 at about 12.30 P.M. It appears from the evidence that this appellant Ranjit Mandal and P. W. 2 Sudama Devi were descendants of a common stock and that after partition, the joint family house had been divided into two parts by raising a wall in between the portions of the appellant and P. W. 2. The appellant was residing in the eastern part of the house, whereas, the informant (P.W. 2) was residing in western part of the house. There was a common fore-court (Sahan) in front of the house. It appears that on account of sharing two portions of the same house, parties were often used to pick up quarrel on very small matters so much so that on the 29th of October, 1986, the lady inmates of the family of the appellant, i.e., his mother and wife had started quarrelling with P.W. 2 Sudama Devi for drying up the wet cloths. It was alleged that this appellant Ranjit Mandal came from the market side and finding that P.W. 2 was quarrelling with his mother and wife rushed into his house stating that he would kill all family members of P.W. 2 and again rushed out of it with a sword. No sooner appellant Ranjit Mandal had exited from his house, he dealt a blow with sword on the head of P.W. 2, who also attempted to ward it off but was hit on her head and the palm of her left hand. No sooner appellant Ranjit Mandal had exited from his house, he dealt a blow with sword on the head of P.W. 2, who also attempted to ward it off but was hit on her head and the palm of her left hand. P. W. 1 Rammi Devi, who was the daughter-in-law of P.W. 2 Sudama Devi seeing her mother-in-law being assaulted with sword by the appellant picked up her son Ghutush Mandal and ran in order to saving herself as also her little son from being assaulted, but was chased down by the appellant towards west and was ultimately assaulted by him, the first blow falling on her little son, who fell down from the lap of his mother, while the second blow fell upon P.W. 1 Rammi Devi. Both P.Ws. 1 and 2 lost their consciousness with the little child Ghutush and were rushed to Sadar Hospital, Bhagalpur where fardbeyan of P.W. 2 was recorded by P.W. 7 A.S.I., Jawahar Lal Singh. 3. As it may appear from the evidence of P.W. 6 S. I., Upendra Narain Singh, who was the Officer-in-Charge of Phulidumar Police Station, the recorded fardbeyan (Ext. 2) reached him on 29. 10.1986 and on that basis, the FIR (Ext. 3) of the case was drown up. Along with Ext. 2 Fardbeyan, P. W. 6 also received the inquest report which was prepared by P.W. 7 after the death of Ghutush and that inquest report was marked Ext. 4. Besides the above two documents, the fardbeyan was also accompanied by the injury reports issued by P.W.7 in respect of injuries found by him on P.Ws. 1 and 2 and those injury reports in the hand of P.W. 7 ASI Jawahar Lal Singh appears marked Exts. 5 and 5/1. P. W. 6 took up the investigation himself and came to the place of occurrence and inspected it. He noted down the description of the place where the occurrence had taken place. As per his evidence, it was the house of the informant which was facing north and was situated at the western extremity of the village. The eastern part of the house was in occupation of the present appellant and the western part was occupied by P.W. 2 Sudama Devi. As per his evidence, it was the house of the informant which was facing north and was situated at the western extremity of the village. The eastern part of the house was in occupation of the present appellant and the western part was occupied by P.W. 2 Sudama Devi. The western part of fore-court (Sahan) was in possession of P.W. 2 and P.W. 6 found blood at a distance of four cubits from the wall of the house towards east-north. The other place was at a distance of 40 steps from the first place where copious blood was again located by P.W. 6 who seized the bloodstain soils. The seizure memo in respect of the seizure of blood-stained earth was prepared by P.W. 7. He recorded the statement of witnesses and also obtained the copies of the post mortem examination report and injury certificates and finding materials sufficient, sent the appellant up for his trial. 4. There does not appear any clear defence set up by the appellant. What appears was that he was attempting to suggest to the Court as if the child could have fallen from the lap of his mother on some sharp cutting weapon and probably he had received the fatal injury. There is no direct suggestion to the above effect, but what we could find out from the cross-examination of some of the witnesses and specifically from the cross-examination of P.W. 4 Dr. Nagendra Narain Bhagat that this attempt was made by the defence. A categorical question was put to P.W. 4 Dr. Bhagat as to whether the injury of the description which was noted by P.W. 4 while conducting autopsy on the dead body of Ghutush could be caused by fall of the child on a scythe. The doctor was very categorically denying the suggestion by stating that it was not possible. So have we discerned the defence of the appellant. 5. In support of the charges, the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses, out of whom, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were injured in course of the same transaction. P.W. 3 Sukhdeo Prasad Singh and P.W. 5 Pramod Kumar Mandal were other eye witnesses, who had supported the genesis of occurrence as also the manner of occurrence. We have already noted that P.W. 6 had investigated the case, while P.W. 7 had recorded the fardbeyan. P.W. 8 Dr. 1 and 2 were injured in course of the same transaction. P.W. 3 Sukhdeo Prasad Singh and P.W. 5 Pramod Kumar Mandal were other eye witnesses, who had supported the genesis of occurrence as also the manner of occurrence. We have already noted that P.W. 6 had investigated the case, while P.W. 7 had recorded the fardbeyan. P.W. 8 Dr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh was the Medical Officer-in-Charge who had attended on P.Ws. 1 and 2 and had issued the injury certificates in respect of injury found by him on the two injured witnesses, which were marked Exts. 5/2 and 5/3. 6. The defence did not examine any witness. 7. We have heard Sri Neeraj Kumar @ Sanidh, learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of the appellant, Sri D. K. Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, and Sri Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the informant. 8. Sri Sanidh attempted to show to us that the fardbeyan could be ante dated and fabricated record and as such, the prosecution case was based on a flimsy record suggesting that the whole story was a cook and bull story. Sri Sanidh also took us through the evidence of P.W. 4 for establishing that there was some vital contradictions in the evidence of witnesses. On these two counts Sri Sanidh argued that the prosecution appears to have failed in substantiating the charges. On the other hand Sri Sinha and Sri Manish Kumar were unanimous in arguing that the two injured witnesses had given an accurate description of the manner of occurrence and there does not appear any reason for them as also for the two remaining witnesses, like, P.Ws. 3 and 5 for deposing falsely against the appellant. It was also submitted that their oral testimony was corroborated in all details by medical evidence and as such, the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned trial judge did not require any interference by this Court. 9. It is consistently stated by the witnesses, like, P.Ws. 3 and 5 that after the two witnesses P.Ws. 1 and 2 and deceased Ghutush had been given sword blows, the three lost their consciousness and as may appear from the evidence of P.W.3 in paragraph 11 as also in the evidence of P.W.5 in paragraph 3, the witnesses and others started making arrangements for shifting the three injured to the Hospital. 1 and 2 and deceased Ghutush had been given sword blows, the three lost their consciousness and as may appear from the evidence of P.W.3 in paragraph 11 as also in the evidence of P.W.5 in paragraph 3, the witnesses and others started making arrangements for shifting the three injured to the Hospital. Their evidence further suggests that while they were amidst their attempts of making arrangements so as to despatching the injured to the hospital, the Police, i.e., P.W.7 A.S.I Jawahar Lal Singh had rushed there and he had taken over the responsibility of despatching the three injured to the hospital. P.W.7 has stated that he arranged for a vehicle and sent the three injured to hospital in Banka, himself following the vehicle, a small truck, by his own motorcycle. P.W.7 further stated that when he had reached Banka hospital, he was informed by the doctor that the treatment of the three injured not being possible there, he had already forwarded the three to Bhagalpur Medical College Hospital and accordingly, P.W.7 came to Bhagalpur where he recorded the fardbeyan. But what appears from the evidence of both of P.Ws. 7 and 8 was that the two injured, i.e., P.Ws. 1 and 2 were being treated there and P.W.8 noted down the injuries found on both the witnesses. P.W.8 had found the following injuries on P.W.1 : (I) Incised wound on the back of right wrist of the size 2” x bone deep caused by sharp cutting weapon. (II) Sharp cutting wound on the dorso-lateral aspect of the forearm of right hand measuring 4” x ¼” x bone deep. (III) Incised wound on the dorso-lateral aspect of right elbow measuring 2” x ¼” x bone deep. (IV) Incised wound on right palm on its anterior aspect. All the four metacarpal bones were found cut. Wound was inverted. No fresh bleeding was found. Size of the wound was 5” x 2” x dorsal skin. (V) Incised wound on right wrist medial and anterior aspect measuring 3” x 1” x bone deep. (VI) Incised wound on dorsal aspect of forearm of the size 3” x 1” x bone deep. (VII) Sharp cut wound on upper eyelid 2” x ½”. (VIII) Sharp cut wound on nose, up to right cheek measuring 2” x ¼” x skin deep. (IX) Sharp cut wound on the right eyelid towards lateral margin ½” x ¼”. (VI) Incised wound on dorsal aspect of forearm of the size 3” x 1” x bone deep. (VII) Sharp cut wound on upper eyelid 2” x ½”. (VIII) Sharp cut wound on nose, up to right cheek measuring 2” x ¼” x skin deep. (IX) Sharp cut wound on the right eyelid towards lateral margin ½” x ¼”. All the above injuries were caused, in the opinion of the doctor, within four hours of his examination and injuries no. (II), (III), (IV) and (VI) were grievous in nature, rest being simple in nature and all the injuries were caused by a sharp cutting weapon, such as, a sword. As regards P.W.2 on examining her P.W.8 found the following injuries on her person : (I) Sharp cut wound on the vault of scalp measuring 3” x ½” x bone deep. (II) Sharp cut wound on the dorsam of hand. All the four metacarpal bones were cut through the wound of the size 4” x 1” x palmer skin deep. In the opinion of P.W.8, the injuries had been caused within six hours from the time of examination of P.W.2 by P.W.8 and they were grievous in nature caused by sharp cutting weapon, like, a sword. 10. Not only from the evidence of the witnesses and the doctor who had examined P.Ws.1 and 2 but also appears from the evidence of P.W.7, it appears that after having come to the hospital after despatching the three injured, he had noted down the injuries on the persons of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and had issued requisition for obtaining the injury certificate in respect of the injuries found on P.Ws. 1 and 2 and those injury reports were marked Exts. 5 and 5/1. Thus, what appears undisputedly established is that P.Ws. 1 and 2 had definitely been assaulted and they had received injuries by weapon, which was allegedly used by the appellant so as to causing the injuries. P.Ws. 1 and 2 being injured witnesses their presence at the place of occurrence had to be accepted. In addition to the above, what we could gather from the evidence of not only of P.Ws. 1 and 2 but also from that of P.Ws. 3 and 5 is that the four witnesses did not bear any animus. P.Ws. 1 and 2 being injured witnesses their presence at the place of occurrence had to be accepted. In addition to the above, what we could gather from the evidence of not only of P.Ws. 1 and 2 but also from that of P.Ws. 3 and 5 is that the four witnesses did not bear any animus. P.W.5 had stated in cross-examination that there had been some dispute between the family of two parties who were co-sharers, as appears from the evidence and had owned property jointly during survey proceeding regarding entries in respect of some land, but after partition except the wordy duels between the lady inmates of the two houses, there was not indeed any serious dispute between the parties. The dispute in respect of some survey entry was stated by P.W.5 in paragraph 8 of cross-examination and he has further given the description as to how the ladies of the two houses had picked up quarrel and had indulged into verbal fights among themselves. Thus, we are satisfied from the evidence that the witnesses, let it be P.Ws. 1 and 2 on the one hand and P.Ws. 3 and 5 on the other hand, did not have any real cause to falsely implicate the appellant who appeared to us the trustworthy witnesses who did not have any motive for deposing in the case except that they were there in the witness box only to divulge the truth of the court which they perceived during the incident. The trustworthiness of the witnesses being beyond reproach, we do not have any reason to view with any amount of doubt the evidence of the four witnesses. 11. Out of four witnesses, we had noted that P.Ws. 1 and 2 were injured but when we were considering the evidence of P.W. 5 Pramod Kumar Mandal we could find out that his narration of incident was more consistent and detailed. He was a common relative of the appellant and P.W. 2 and had settled down in the house of his Nani, who happened to be the mother-in-law of P.W. 2 which appears admitted by P.W. 5 in his evidence. There does not appear any single fact, as we have already noted in the evidence of P.W. 5 which could create any doubt in our mind regarding the truthfulness of P.W. 5. From the combined evidence of P.Ws. There does not appear any single fact, as we have already noted in the evidence of P.W. 5 which could create any doubt in our mind regarding the truthfulness of P.W. 5. From the combined evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, and 5 what appears is that during initial quarrel between the mother and wife of the appellant on the one hand and P.W. 2 on the other, the appellant was not present in his house. The ladies had quarreled for quite some times, but they had never been physical during that quarrel. It was simply wordy duels between the two parties and it had probably lasted for quite some a long time. P.W. 5 had stated that for three hours that verbal duel continued between the parties and it had died down automatically but after one hour of the termination of the initial verbal duel, the ladies again picked up quarrel when this appellant was back and was present and then, he decided to pick up the sword and hurl it on P.W. 2 first and thereafter, to chase down P.W. 1 to initially give a blow to the four-year-old child Ghutush and then, repeated blows to the lady. The evidence of P.W. 6 Upendra Narain Singh, the investigating officer in paragraph 2 indicates that the distance between the two places where blood had been found that’s, one in the fore-court and the other at a distant place, was forty steps, i.e., roughly about 120 feet. The evidence of P.W. 4 Dr. Nagendra Narain Bhagat indicates that it was a solitary blow which was given by the present appellant on Ghutush (deceased) which had resulted into an incised wound of size 8” x 1” x brain deep on right side of skull and face, extending from anterior side above right ear to the occipital region. On opening the skull P.W. 4 found frontal, auxiliary and right temporal bones up-to occipital bone cut with deep cutting of brain matter into the depth of 1 ½”, which had resulted into sub-dural haemotoma. The above ante mortem injuries in the opinion of P.W.4 was caused by a sharp cutting weapon, like, a sword, which resulted into the death of Ghutush. The autopsy was conducted by P.W.4 on the dead body of the deceased child within 12 to 18 hours. The above ante mortem injuries in the opinion of P.W.4 was caused by a sharp cutting weapon, like, a sword, which resulted into the death of Ghutush. The autopsy was conducted by P.W.4 on the dead body of the deceased child within 12 to 18 hours. Thus what we find is that there is a consistency in the evidence of witnesses and that consistency as regards the manner of occurrence was fully supported by the doctor. 12. Coming to the submission of Sri Sanidh regarding ante dating aspect of the fardbeyan, we very cautiously went through the evidence of P.W. 7 ASI Jawahar Lal Singh. We find that there was a crime centre established in the village of incident and P.W. 7 had been put on duty there. He had picked up the sound of commotion and had rushed to the place of the occurrence which was about ½ kilometre away from the centre and had found the two ladies P.Ws. 1 and 2 along with the deceased child lying unconscious. Sri Sanidh submitted that he should have recorded the fardbeyan or FIR as P.Ws. 3 and 5 both have pointed out that they had gone to Jamadar (P.W. 7) but what we find from the evidence of P.W. 3 was that the main concern of the witnesses was to ensure the despatch of the three injured and unconscious witnesses for treatment to the hospital. While they were amidst making such arrangements, P.W. 7 arrived there and he took over the task of ensuring the despatch of the three injured witnesses himself and accordingly, despatched them. It is true that in his cross-examination P. W. 3 was put a question as to whether any of the witnesses or the villagers who had claimed to have seen the occurrence and who had gone to ASI. P.W. 7 had stated to him that as to who had committed the offence, but while perusing the evidence especially of P.Ws. 3, 5 and 7 we could satisfy our conscience that the condition of the three injured which included a little child of three and a half years as per the evidence of P.W. 4 could be the primarily concern of the witnesses and the police officer both who ensured the despatch of the injured to the hospital so as to saving their lives. This concern of the witnesses and the presence could very well take care of the submission of Sri Sanidh that no one was coming forward to P. W. 7 to tell anything as regards the complicity of any person for committing the offence. Going further into the evidence, what we find was that P.W. 7 was not leaving the matter at that. When he had finally dispatched the three injured to the hospital, rather he had picked up his motorcycle to travel up to Banka where he was informed by the attending physician that the treatment of the three injured was not possible in the hospital at Banka, as such, they had been forwarded to Bhagalpur Medical College Hospital and accordingly, he came back to Bhagalpur and there he recorded the statement of P.W. 2 after she had regained her consciousness after treatment. Thus, the concern of P.W. 7 to record the fardbeyan always occupied his mind too. He might not have questioned any person present there, but that does not take out the importance of his effort to record the fardbeyan of one of the injured person as the witnesses and the police officer P.W. 7 have all unequivocally stated that none of the family members of three injured were present on the spot. Sri Sanidh was also pointing out to us some of the contradictions, but when we were examining the contradictions, like, that P. W. 2 had not stated that she was assaulted. We found that while making her statement in the form of the fardbeyan just after having recovered from the loss of consciousness; it could never be expected of a lady of the stature of P.W. 3 to narrate all the minute details of the incident. The FIR was lodged only for setting the criminal law in motion and for facilitating investigation of the cognizable offence. The document is not supposed to contain all details of the incident. It is supposed simply to contain sufficient details relating to the incident so as to pointing out which offence was constituted or had been committed by a person known or unknown. The document is not supposed to contain all details of the incident. It is supposed simply to contain sufficient details relating to the incident so as to pointing out which offence was constituted or had been committed by a person known or unknown. If prosecution cases are being thrown out merely because details of place of occurrence has not been mentioned in the FIR, it shall be the travesty of justice and the approach of the court could simply be, like, hair splitting of the evidence by adopting a very impractical approach to appreciation the evidence. P.W. 2 had stated necessary details indicating how the occurrence had taken place and whatever further details were required to be given by her, in our opinion, she narrated those details in her evidence. But, what we further find is that she might not have stated that she was given a blow in her Khalihan, but the defence did not suggest to her that she had not made a statement after her fardbeyan to the police that she was assaulted at that particular place. Likewise, while cross-examining P.W. 3 the defence had drawn attention of the witnesses to certain statements in paragraph 9 of his cross-examination, but while cross-examining P.W. 6 Investigating Officer those statements in paragraph 9 of P.W. 3 were left out and new statements were brought on record by cross-examining P.W. 6 which, in our considered view, was putting misleading questions to the Investigating Officer. 13. While perusing the evidence of witnesses, we could find out that the defence had cross-examined P.Ws. 1 and 2 on their belated statement before the Investigating Officer of the case. Though this point was not raised by Sri Sanidh in his submission, we though it proper to consider the lapse of the Investigating Officer. We have already noted down the injuries, which were found by P.W. 8 on the persons of P.Ws. 1 and 2, those injuries, in our opinion, must have caused the two witnesses to loss their consciousness which fact is stated by witnesses also including P.W. 7 ASI Jawahar Lal Singh. We have already noted down the injuries, which were found by P.W. 8 on the persons of P.Ws. 1 and 2, those injuries, in our opinion, must have caused the two witnesses to loss their consciousness which fact is stated by witnesses also including P.W. 7 ASI Jawahar Lal Singh. P.W. 5 has stated that the doctor had advised not to allow P.W. 1 to regain her consciousness and we could appreciate the advice of the doctor because she had as many as nine injuries, out of which, four were grievous in nature and she was so brutally assaulted by as dangerous a weapon as a sword that she had attempted to defend herself even by gripping the weapon in her right palm, as a result of which, a wound of the size 5” x 2” dorsal skin deep was caused. The nature of injuries at the same time with their numbers could never allow the witnesses to make such statements to any police officer. P.W. 6 had stated that he recorded the statement on 15.11.1986, he has very clearly stated that he had never visited Bhagalpur Medical Hospital prior to 15.11.1986 and after having taken over the investigation on the 30th of October, 1986 , if the investigating officer, in our opinion, was not diligent enough to appreciate the importance of recording the statement of witnesses promptly, we cannot reject the evidence of such witnesses merely because the police officer was slack in performance of his statutory duty. 14. After having considered the evidence of prosecution witnesses and in the light of submission forwarded before us, we are of the view that the judgment impugned herein was rightly passed and the same does not require any interference by us. The appeal appears to us meritless. It is hereby dismissed. The appellant Ranjit Mandal is on bail. His bond is, hereby, cancelled. Let him surrender in the court below to serve out his sentence. If he does not surrender within a month of receipt of a copy of the present judgment, the court below shall take all steps necessary in law to ensure that he is arrested and sent to prison to serve out the sentence. 15. We have been assisted by Sri Neeraj Kumar Sanidh, who was appointed Amicus curiae to assist this Court today itself. 15. We have been assisted by Sri Neeraj Kumar Sanidh, who was appointed Amicus curiae to assist this Court today itself. We direct that Sri Sanidh be paid the prescribed fee of one hearing by the Patna High Court Legal Services Committed for assisting the Court. Let the first and last pages of the judgment be handed over to him. Appeal dismissed.