JUDGMENT : RAJASEKHAR MANTHA, J. 1. The instant appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 30th April 2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kakdwip, South 24 Parganas in Sessions Trial No. 2(6) 07 arising out of Sessions Case No. 72 (3) of 2007. By reason of the said judgment and conviction the appellant was convicted under Section 323/324 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that one Nishikanta Barman (PW-1), father of the victim, lodged a complaint with the Officer in-Charge, Namkhana Police Station on the 8th of April 2006. It was stated in the complaint that his son Arup Barman (PW-2) (victim), was going to Namkhana market from his house on a bicycle. He crossed a “Ring bund” near a rice mill called “Bangalakshmi Rice Mill”. PW-2 is stated to have seen a van carrying sawed wooden logs was parked in the middle of the road and was blocking free passage. PW-2 asked the van puller (PW-5) and his brother (PW-7) present thereat to remove the same when the appellant Arun Jana, to whom the logs were to be delivered and who was standing near a “Trailer” under repair, rushed towards PW1 and abused him in filthy language. The appellant is also stated to have assaulted the victim on the head and different parts of the body with an iron rod. 3. In an attempt to fight back the PW-2 bit off the appellant’s finger. The appellant is also stated to have attempted to crush the testicles of the appellant with his hands. A separate complaint is stated to have been lodged by the appellant in this regard. 4. The appellant thereafter, seeing two persons coming to intervene at the place of occurrence fled away. PW-2 was taken by two persons namely Uttam Kumar Jana and Srikanta Bera to Dwarikanath Block Primary Health Centre (BPHC) for treatment. The victim was later shifted to Diamond Harbour Hospital as his condition was precarious. A case was registered under Section 323/325/341/307 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. 5. PW-2 was taken by two persons namely Uttam Kumar Jana and Srikanta Bera to Dwarikanath Block Primary Health Centre (BPHC) for treatment. The victim was later shifted to Diamond Harbour Hospital as his condition was precarious. A case was registered under Section 323/325/341/307 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. 5. The trial commenced and the prosecution examined 13 witnesses and the appellant was also examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The said witnesses are as follows :- PW 1 Nishikanta Barman (Father of the victim) PW 2 Arup Barman (Victim) PW 3 Uttam Gayen (Local resident who was present) PW 4 Swarup Barman (Seizure witness) PW 5 Manas Palui (Rickshaw van puller) PW 6 Uday Mondal (2nd seizure list witness) PW 7 Tapas Palui (brother of rickshaw van puller) PW8 - Kamal Bera (local resident present at the time of incident) PW 9 - Lakhhikanta Santra PW 10 Bakul Chandra Maiti (local resident not an eye witness) PW 11 Dr. Gurupada Mondal (Examining doctor) PW 12 Ashwini Kumar Shee (Not an eye-witness) PW 13 Samar Kanti Bhowmik (S.I. of Police, Namkhana P.S., as on incident) 6. From the evidence of the witnesses, it transpired that the victim was a member of CPDR (a Human Rights Organisation) and the appellant was a member of CPI (M) (a political party). There was some bad blood between the victim and the appellant in the past. 7. Counsel for the appellant argued that the evidence of the seizure witnesses and the manner of seizure of the weapon as also the T-shirt (wrongly described as guernsey) are suspect. The guernsey was never marked with the date of seizure nor was any seal affixed thereon . The same was the case with the iron rod being the alleged weapon. The seizure witnesses could not thus, have identified the weapon used or the T-shirt worn by the victim. 8. It was further argued that PW 5, denied the incident and was declared hostile. He was the rickshaw van puller who could have a key witness. PW 7, the brother of rickshaw van puller, who was also present at the time of incident also turned hostile and could not recollect the incident. PW 8, Kamal Bera, denied ever knowing the victim and also turned hostile. He was not present at the time of the occurrence. PW 7, the brother of rickshaw van puller, who was also present at the time of incident also turned hostile and could not recollect the incident. PW 8, Kamal Bera, denied ever knowing the victim and also turned hostile. He was not present at the time of the occurrence. The only other witnesses than the appellant and his father was PW 9 whose evidence could have been relied upon but he could not recollect the incident clearly. That he was an interested witness who worked for the victim and his father, could arise in view of the cross-examination. The other witness, PW 10, was not an eye witness and his evidence must be treated as hearsay. 9. It cannot however be overlooked that a poor rickshaw puller may have been frightened and may not have wanted to depose against a person on whom his income was dependant. The deposition was being recorded an year after the incident. 10. I have carefully examined the evidence on record. There are indeed some discrepancies also with regard to the time of lodging of the F.I.R. and as to how a victim of a serious assault could have been present in the Police Station at all when he was stated to be under medical treatment. The same is also contradicted by the evidence of the other witnesses that the victim was initially taken after 5.30 pm to the local public health centre and thereafter immediately shifted to Diamond Harbour Hospital. It is un-understood as to how the father of the victim along with the victim, could have lodged a complaint at 11.15 pm when the victim’s father stated that there was delay in lodging the F.I.R. as he was attending the treatment of his son. How then the F.I.R. was lodged on the same date of the incident within 6 hours thereof. 11. The Evidence of the PW3 Uttam Gayen and PW-8 corroborated by the evidence of the IO (PW-13) and the discharge report abundantly prove the charges against the appellant. 12. I find that the impugned judgment is fair and judicious and well considered. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. The appellant was only sentenced to 6 months imprisonment and fine. I find that the punishment is commensurate with the charges proved. 13. The appellant is on bail. 12. I find that the impugned judgment is fair and judicious and well considered. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. The appellant was only sentenced to 6 months imprisonment and fine. I find that the punishment is commensurate with the charges proved. 13. The appellant is on bail. His bail shall stand cancelled and he shall undergo sentence and punishment imposed by the Court below. The fine shall be collected from the appellant. The Officer in-Charge, Namkhana Police Station shall take appellant into custody and shall ensure that the appellant undergoes his sentence. The period, if any, spent in custody shall not be treated as part of the sentence. 14. Hence, CRA No. 455 of 2008 is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. 15. Urgent Xerox certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on urgent basis.