JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties. 2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 14.07.2005 and Order of Sentence dated 16.07.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I at Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No.220 of 2004 whereby and where under the sole appellant has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine he was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 3. The case of the prosecution in as unfolded in the Fardbeyan of the informant is that the intervening night of 8th-9th June of 2004, the informant after taking supper, was sleeping. At about 10:00 p.m., the accused-appellant- who is the younger brother of the informant-victim, assaulted the informant-victim with a tangi on his left arm and when the informant tried to save himself, the accused-appellant assaulted him on his nose, shoulder and when the wife of informant-victim raised alarm the accused-appellant fled away. On hearing the alarm, the elder brother of the informant namely Budhu Gope and other villagers came. First aid was given to the informant- victim at the Anganbari and thereafter he was taken to Chakradharpur Government Hospital and the matter was reported to village Munda also. On the basis of the Fardbeyan of the informant-victim, police registered Toklo P.S. Case No.44 of 2004 corresponding to G.R. No.119 of 2004 and took up the investigation of the case. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the accused-appellant. 4. Upon commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon the accused pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, he was put to trial. 5. In course of trial, the prosecution altogether examined nine witnesses including the doctor and the investigation officer and proved the documents and material exhibits. No witness, however, was examined on behalf of the defence. 6. Out of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1- Natho Gope is the informant- victim. He has stated that the occurrence took place in the night of 08.06.2004 four or five months prior to his adducing evidence in court. No witness, however, was examined on behalf of the defence. 6. Out of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1- Natho Gope is the informant- victim. He has stated that the occurrence took place in the night of 08.06.2004 four or five months prior to his adducing evidence in court. He was examined in the court on 28.01.2005. He has further stated that after taking supper, he was sleeping. The accused-appellant came armed with an axe (tangi) and assaulted him on his nose, head and shoulder and fled away. P.W.1- Nathu Gope raised alarm, upon which his wife, his elder brother and villagers came. He narrated the occurrence to them. Police recorded his fardbeyan in hospital. He identified the accused-appellant in the court. In his cross-examination he has stated that his wife was sleeping inside the house and he was sleeping outside. His wife woke up after the accused- appellant fled away. He cannot say why the accused-appellant assaulted him. He was taken to Chaibasa hospital from Chakradharpur hospital and he remained in Chaibasa hospital for two months. He did not hand over the documents of his treatment to police. There was no source of light at the place of occurrence. 7. P.W.2- Hiramuni Gope is the wife of the informant- victim. She has stated that she was sleeping at the time of occurrence. Hence, she has not seen the occurrence. Her husband told her that the accused- appellant assaulted him on his arm, nose and head. In her cross-examination she has stated that she was not examined by the police. 8. P.W.3- Budhram Gope is the brother of the informant- victim. He has stated that at the time of occurrence he was sleeping in his house. He went to the house of P.W.1- Natho Gope on hearing the alarm raised by P.W.2- Hiramuni Gope. P.W.1- Natho Gope was sleeping outside his house. It was a summer day. He found the injuries on the person of P.W.1- Natho Gope. P.W.1 told him that he was assaulted by the accused-appellant. P.W.1 was taken to the hospital and police came. One Kantha (a mattress made of cloth used by villagers) and one axe (tangi) was handed over by him to the police and the police prepared the seizure list and he put his thumb impression thereon. He identified the accused-appellant in the court. P.W.1 was taken to the hospital and police came. One Kantha (a mattress made of cloth used by villagers) and one axe (tangi) was handed over by him to the police and the police prepared the seizure list and he put his thumb impression thereon. He identified the accused-appellant in the court. In his cross-examination he could not say the date, day or month of the occurrence. He reached the place of occurrence half an hour after the occurrence. He further stated that many people of the village assembled on hearing the hue and cry. The axe and mattress which was seized were not available in the court at the time of his examination. 9. P.W.4- Konda Gope is the father-in-law of P.W.1- Natho Gope. He has stated that on hearing the hue and cry raised by P.W.2- Hiramuni Gope, he reached the place of occurrence. There was bleeding injury on the person of P.W.1- Natho Gope. He also saw the accused- appellant fleeing away. On being asked, P.W.1- Natho Gope disclosed that the accused- appellant assaulted him. Police came to the village and in his presence seized the mattress and the axe. Police prepared the seizure list and he put his thumb impression thereon. In his cross-examination, he has stated that P.W.1- Natho Gope was sleeping at a distance of 15-20 ft. outside his room. P.W.4- Konda Gope was sleeping in the house of P.W.3- Budhram Gope. 10. P.W.5- Mangu Gope was tendered for cross-examination. 11. P.W.6- Silai Gagrai has stated that on the next day of the occurrence, P.W.3- Budhram Gope told him that the accused- appellant had assaulted P.W.1- Natho Gope with a tangi. Police came to the village. P.W.3- Budhram Gope handed over the axe and mattress to the police in his presence and police prepared the seizure list. P.W.3- Budhram Gope and P.W.4- Konda Gope put their thumb impression on the seizure list and the P.W.6- Silai Gagrai signed on the seizure list which was marked Ext. 1. In his cross-examination, the P.W.6- Silai Gagrai has stated that the seized axe and mattress were not available in the court. The seizure list was prepared in the house of P.W.1- Natho Gope. 12. P.W.7- Shankar Mahto is the Investigating Officer of this case. He has proved the fardbeyan which was marked Ext. 2. 1. In his cross-examination, the P.W.6- Silai Gagrai has stated that the seized axe and mattress were not available in the court. The seizure list was prepared in the house of P.W.1- Natho Gope. 12. P.W.7- Shankar Mahto is the Investigating Officer of this case. He has proved the fardbeyan which was marked Ext. 2. He recorded the re-statement of the informant- victim and inspected the place of occurrence. He described the place of occurrence in detail with its boundaries. During investigation, he seized the blood stained axe and blood stained mattress on the same being produced by P.W.3- Budhram Gope. The seizure list on being proved by P.W.7 has been marked Ext. 3. He also recorded the statement of other witnesses. The requisition for injury report on being proved by P.W.7 has been marked Ext. 4 and the injury report has been marked Ext. 5. After completion of the investigation he submitted the charge-sheet in the case. In his cross-examination he has stated that there was no information about the occurrence at the Toklo police station before recording of the fardbeyan. The P.W.1- Natho Gope did not say about being assaulted on his head in his fardbeyan. He did not seize the blood stained soil. The axe and mattress which were seized by him were in the Malkhana and were not available in the court. He has not mentioned the length and breadth of the axe. 13. P.W.8- Dr. Birendra Prasad Singh examined the injuries of P.W.1- Natho Gope and found the following:- (1) Sharp cut wound on left Scapular region Size 12 cm including 5 cm up to bone deep. (2) Sharp cutting wound on upper part of left arm near shoulder on posterior aspect 10 cm x 5 cm up bone. (3) Sharp cutting wound on posterior state of left arm in upper part 10 cm X 5 cm bone deep. (4) Sharp cutting wound on interior aspect of left arm near shoulder 10 cm X 3 cm X muscles deep. (5) Sharp cutting wound on anterior aspect of left upper arm 6 cm X 3 cm X muscles deep. (6) Sharp cutting wound on left temporal region 10 cm X 3cm X bone deep. (7) Linear abrasion on left side of neck 10 cm X 1 cm. (8) Sharp cutting wound on bridge of nose 5 cm X 2 cm bone deep. (6) Sharp cutting wound on left temporal region 10 cm X 3cm X bone deep. (7) Linear abrasion on left side of neck 10 cm X 1 cm. (8) Sharp cutting wound on bridge of nose 5 cm X 2 cm bone deep. (9) Fracture left humorous neck and left temporal region of scalp. P.W.8 further stated that at 01:10 p.m. on 09.06.2004 he examined the injured. He found the injuries to be 12-20 hours old. He opined that the injuries were grievous in nature and were caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon such as tangi or kulhari (axe). He also identified the injury report prepared by him which was marked Ext. 5 earlier. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the injuries were sufficient to cause death. He did not advice for any X-ray examination. 14. P.W.9- Selai Munda(Gagrei) is the Munda of the village. He has stated that in the next morning of occurrence, he got the information that the accused- appellant has assaulted P.W.1- Natho Gope with axe and injured him. He went to the house of P.W.1- Natho Gope and saw the injuries sustained by him on his body. P.W.1- Natho Gope told him that the accused- appellant has inflicted the injuries. P.W.9- Selai Munda and others took P.W.1- Natho Gope to police station and police sent P.W.1 to hospital. He identified the accused- appellant in the court. In his cross-examination he stated that the P.W.2- Hiramuni Gope informed him about the occurrence. Being the Munda of the village he maintains information book and enters the information given to him by the villagers and the information of this occurrence has also been entered in the said book. The accused- appellant is involved in several cases but there is no case against the P.W.1- Natho Gope. 15. After conclusion of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C of the accused- appellant was recorded by police wherein he denied the circumstances appearing in evidence against him and pleaded innocence. No evidence however was adduced on behalf of the accused- appellant person. 16. Taking into consideration the evidences available in record, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated above. 17. Mr. Suraj Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned trial court passed the judgment against the weight of evidence in the record. No evidence however was adduced on behalf of the accused- appellant person. 16. Taking into consideration the evidences available in record, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated above. 17. Mr. Suraj Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned trial court passed the judgment against the weight of evidence in the record. He further submitted that except P.W.1- Natho Gope, there is no eye-witness to the occurrence and P.W.1- Natho Gope has admitted that there was no source of light at the time of occurrence. Hence, he submits that the learned court below has erroneously held the appellant guilty on the basis of the testimony of P.W.1- Natho Gope. He further submits that in his fardbeyan, P.W.1- Natho Gope did not depose of any assault on his head but for the first time he deposed about assault on his head in his testimony. He also submits that the alleged seized weapon of offence or the mattress was never produced before the trial court nor the same were sent for serological examination and the Investigating Officer also did not seize the blood stained axe from the place of occurrence and the learned court below failed to take note of these shortcomings in the case of the prosecution. He lastly submits that this is a fit case where the appellant be acquitted by at least giving him the benefit of doubt. 18. Mrs. Banani Verma, learned Addl. P.P., on the other hand defended the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submitted that P.W.1- Natho Gope is undisputedly an injured witness and he has in categorical manner stated about the assault made by the accused-appellant to him by axe and the said testimony of the P.W.1 has not been demolished in any manner in his cross-examination and it is not even the case of the defence that he has any axe to grind against the accused- appellant who is his own brother. It is further submitted by her that all the material witnesses are either related to both P.W.1- Natho Gope and the accused- appellant or of their villages and it is not even the case of the defence that anybody had any reason to falsely implicate the accused- appellant in the case. It is further submitted by her that all the material witnesses are either related to both P.W.1- Natho Gope and the accused- appellant or of their villages and it is not even the case of the defence that anybody had any reason to falsely implicate the accused- appellant in the case. She further submits that all the witnesses of the prosecution have supported the case of the prosecution and the P.W.4- Konda Gope even has seen the accused- appellant fleeing away from the place of occurrence immediately after the occurrence. The oral testimony and the material witness of the prosecution have been corroborated by the medical evidence put forth by the P.W.8- Dr. Birendra Prasad Singh, who examined the P.W.1- Natho Gope after the occurrence. She lastly submits that in view of the overwhelming evidence put forth by the prosecution, the learned court below has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant and this appeal being without any merit be dismissed. 19. Having heard learned counsels for both the parties and after perusal of the record, I find that the P.W.1- Natho Gope is a rustic villager and is an illiterate person as is evident from his deposition, where he has put his thumb impression instead of signing. Hence his not mentioning in his fardbeyan of being assaulted on his head cannot discredit his otherwise trustworthy testimony. He has categorically stated about being assaulted with axe by the accused- appellant who is his own brother. It is a settled principle of law that normally, an injured witness would enjoy greater credibility because he is the sufferer himself and thus, there will be no occasion for such a person to state an incorrect version of the occurrence, or to involve anybody falsely and in the bargain protect the real culprit (vide Mano Dutt v. State of U.P., (2012) 4 SCC 79 , at page 91 paragraph -31). It is also pertinent to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in this respect in the case of Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P. (2010) 10 SCC 259 where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: (SCC pp. 271-72, paragraphs 28-30) “28. The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed by this Court. 271-72, paragraphs 28-30) “28. The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed by this Court. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. ‘Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness.’ [Vide Ramlagan Singh v. State of Bihar (1973) 3 SCC 881 , Malkhan Singh v. State of U.P. (1975) 3 SCC 311 , Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) 3 SCC 470 , Appabhai v. State of Gujarat1988 Supp SCC 241, Bonkya v. State of Maharashtra (1995) 6 SCC 447 , Bhag Singh v. State of Punjab, (1997) 7 SCC 712 , Mohar v. State of U.P. (2002) 7 SCC 606 (SCC p. 606b-c), Dinesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan (2008) 8 SCC 270 , Vishnu v. State of Rajasthan (2009) 10 SCC 477 , Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy v. State of A.P. (2009) 12 SCC 546 and Balraje v. State of Maharashtra (2010) 6 SCC 673 ] 29. While deciding this issue, a similar view was taken in Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab (2009) 9 SCC 719 where this Court reiterated the special evidentiary status accorded to the testimony of an injured accused and relying on its earlier judgments held as under: (SCC pp. 726-27, paras 28-29) ‘28. Darshan Singh (PW 4) was an injured witness. He had been examined by the doctor. His testimony could not be brushed aside lightly. He had given full details of the incident as he was present at the time when the assailants reached the tubewell. In Shivalingappa Kallayanappa v. State of Karnataka1994 Supp (3) SCC 235 this Court has held that the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies, for the reason that his presence on the scene stands established in case it is proved that he suffered the injury during the said incident. 29. 29. In State of U.P. v. Kishan Chand (2004) 7 SCC 629 a similar view has been reiterated observing that the testimony of a stamped witness has its own relevance and efficacy. The fact that the witness sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence, lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. In case the injured witness is subjected to lengthy cross-examination and nothing can be elicited to discard his testimony, it should be relied upon (vide Krishan v. State of Haryana (2006) 12 SCC 459 ). Thus, we are of the considered opinion that evidence of Darshan Singh (PW 4) has rightly been relied upon by the courts below.’ 30. The law on the point can be summarised to the effect that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein.” (Emphasis Supplied) Now coming to the facts of this case the P.W.1 described the occurrence in detail. There is no doubt that he has sustained extensive injuries as has been deposed by the doctor who has examined him including injuries on vital parts. Nothing has been elicited in his cross-examination to discredit his testimony. Hence his testimony is wholly reliable. There is no doubt that he has sustained extensive injuries as has been deposed by the doctor who has examined him including injuries on vital parts. Nothing has been elicited in his cross-examination to discredit his testimony. Hence his testimony is wholly reliable. Keeping in view the fact that the accused- appellant was well-known to the P.W.1- Natho Gope being his own brother and the P.W.1 saw the accused-appellant from very close quarter for a considerable period of time, which is obvious from the fact that for inflicting the injuries by axe which was found on the person of the P.W.1 by the doctor, the accused-appellant must be only about a arms or two length from the P.W.1 and it would take considerable time to inflict several injuries and as the evidence in the record suggests that the accused-appellant fled away from the place of occurrence only after the wife of the P.W.1 raised alarm, the absence of bright light at the place of occurrence in the facts of this case, cannot be a reason to discard the otherwise trustworthy and reliable testimony of P.W.1- Natho Gope. The testimony of P.W.1- Natho Gope is corroborated by the P.W.4- Konda Gope who saw the accused- appellant fleeing away from the place of occurrence. This portion of the testimony of the P.W.4- Konda Gope that he saw the accused- appellant fleeing away after the occurrence has not even been challenge in his cross-examination. There is absolutely no cross-examination of P.W.4- Konda Gope in this respect. So, this portion of the testimony of P.W.4- Konda Gope in the absence of any cross-examination is to be accepted. These testimonies are corroborated by the medical evidence that have come from the P.W.8- Dr. Birendra Prasad Singh who examined the P.W.1- Natho Gope after he sustained the injuries. The Munda of the village who appears to be an independent witness has also supported the case of the prosecution though of course he does not have any personal knowledge about the occurrence. 20. Birendra Prasad Singh who examined the P.W.1- Natho Gope after he sustained the injuries. The Munda of the village who appears to be an independent witness has also supported the case of the prosecution though of course he does not have any personal knowledge about the occurrence. 20. Taking into consideration the evidences in the record as already mentioned above, in my considered opinion, this is a fit case where the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the charge against the accused/ appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubts and the sentence of five years and the fine of Rs.1,000/- is also proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned court below is confirmed and this appeal being without any merit is dismissed. 21. Perusal of the record reveals that vide letter dated 28.03.2018, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa has informed that the appellant has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody for undergoing remaining sentence on 27.03.2018. 22. Let the copy of this judgment be sent to the court below forthwith.