JUDGMENT : Heard S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. A. Roy Barman, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the state. 2. The appellant was charged under Section 332 and 307 of the IPC separately and he was convicted under Section 332 of the IPC on culmination of the trial for committing the offence of causing voluntary hurt to the informant (Uttam Debbarma), a public servant. The judgment and order of conviction dated 28.08.2017 delivered in ST-20(GT/A) of 2015 by the Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur is under challenge in this appeal. 3. The root of the prosecution is located in the complaint filed by Uttam Debbarma, a constable of police on 28.05.2015 [Exbt.1] disclosing to the Officer-in-Charge to the Birganj police station, Amarpur, that he was deputed in the duty of accompanying the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, who was leading a search along with two other Sub-Inspectors of Police namely Bimalendu Saha [PW-2] and Krishnadhan Debnath [PW-9]. The said team was consisted of woman Police Constables namely Rina Das [PW-3] and Soma Barman [PW-7]. That apart, Drug Inspector of the Gomati District namely Subrata Das [PW-5] was, at some stage, part of the said operation. They reached the shop of the appellant at around 12 p.m. of 28.05.2015 and in presence of the witnesses, PW-5 conducted the search. The appellant was found in the shop in an inebriated condition and he was behaving unruly and interrupting the search. The informant was directed to keep the appellant under observation and restraint. Thereafter, the team reached to the house of the appellant located at Birbal Das Para. The informant was given the same responsibility of keeping the appellant under restraint so that he could not intercept in the process of search. At one point of time, the appellant as it has been alleged in the complaint, having intention to kill the informant throttled him. The informant tried to free him from the clutch and he managed to raise alarm. Then, the other accompanying officers resisted him and they somehow managed to free the appellant from his clutch. The informant has categorically stated in the said complaint that he sustained injuries around his neck and chest from the assault. He was advised to do the x-ray. Then, the other accompanying officers resisted him and they somehow managed to free the appellant from his clutch. The informant has categorically stated in the said complaint that he sustained injuries around his neck and chest from the assault. He was advised to do the x-ray. In the complaint it has been categorically stated that the accused purposefully put up obstruction in the way of performing his duty, intentionally battered him and caused injury. Even, he tried to kill him when he was performing his duty. 4. Based on the said complaint, Birganj P.S. Case No.2015 BRG 032 under Sections 353/333/307 of the IPC was registered and taken up for investigation. On completing the investigation the final police report was filed. Thereafter, the police papers were committed to the court of Sessions Judge as the offence punishable under Section 307 is exclusively triable by the court of sessions. Having taken cognizance of the offence from the police report, the charge against the appellant was framed as stated. The appellant pleaded innocence and claimed to face the trial. 5. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution adduced as many as 12(twelve) witnesses including the victim [PW-1], the eye witnesses-PWs 2, 3, 5, 7 and 9. In addition, the prosecution had introduced 5 documentary evidence including the injury report prepared by Dr. Sanghamitra Das [PW-8]. After recording the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. when the appellant repeated his plea of innocence and stated that incriminating materials surfaced on the record are all falsified or concocted. Having appreciated the record of evidence, the appellant has been convicted under Section 332 of the IPC and directed to suffer the sentence as stated. 6. Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has raised serious objection on the points that since PW-9 is an witness to the occurrence, his taking up of the investigation is caused serious prejudice to the appellant. That apart, it has been urged in this appeal that in terms of the Police Regulations of Bengal (PRB in short) as adopted for the State of Tripura vide Rule 377 whenever the police goes out of the police station in connection of any action to be taken they are under obligation to record the entry or their exit from the police station. PRB 377 deals with the general diary of the police station. PRB 377 deals with the general diary of the police station. It says that every occurrence which may be brought to the knowledge of the officers of police shall be entered in the diary at the time at which it is communicated to the station, and if no incident was communicated during the day, that fact shall as well be noted in the diary before it is closed and dispatched. Further, Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has submitted that there is a serious doubt whether the complainant, PW-1 was discharging the public duty or not. If the element of discharging the public duty is not proved, the offence cannot stated to attract Section 332 of the IPC. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has further submitted that there is no independent witness to support the case of the prosecution. 7. From the other side, Mr. Roy Barman, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the state has submitted that the prosecution has well established the case by integrating the physical evidence with the medical evidence and there is no requirement of any interference from this court in the impugned judgment and conviction. 8. For purpose of appreciation of the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties it would be apposite to take a short survey of the evidence, so recorded in the trial. 9. PW-1, Uttam Debbarma is the informant and he has made the similar statement in the trial stating how he was attacked by the appellant and rescued by the accompanying officers. He suffered injuries for the culpable act of the appellant. 10. PW-2, Bimalendu Saha, one of the accompanying Sub-Inspectors of police, has clearly corroborated and supported the case of the informant [PW-1]. He has stated in the trial that: “We also took Palash Ghosh there and there also Uttam Debbarma was instructed to guard Palash Ghosh. Thereafter we along with Drug Inspector were searching the house of Palash Ghosh. Thereafter hearing alarm I noticed that Palash Ghosh has throttled the neck of Uttam Debbarma and tried to flee away. Thereafter he was detained by other police personnel. During search in his house more than 70 nos. Thereafter we along with Drug Inspector were searching the house of Palash Ghosh. Thereafter hearing alarm I noticed that Palash Ghosh has throttled the neck of Uttam Debbarma and tried to flee away. Thereafter he was detained by other police personnel. During search in his house more than 70 nos. of such Corex syrup were recovered by said Subrata Das which were seized by said Drug Inspector by preparing a seizure list and I also signed in the said seizure list.” PW-2 in his cross-examination was asked about whether they made the entry in the GD when they were going out from the police station by mentioning the purpose of going out. In the reply, PW-2 has categorically stated as follows: “We always make G.D. Entry for going out from the police station and we also mention the purpose for which we are going out. After return in the P.S. we again make necessary G.D. Entry with brief description of what has happened in our such tour.” No way the deposition of PW-2 is dented. 11. PW-3, Smt. Rina Das, the women police personnel has corroborated the story and in cross-examination her statement could not be affected in any manner. 12. PW-4, Smt. Shiuli Saha, another women constable who was posted in Birganj police station, has stated that on 28.05.2015 he wrote the complaint at the dictation of the informant. She identified the complaint that she scribed [Exbt.1] in the trial. 13. PW-5, Subrata Das is the Inspecting Officer of Drugs for Gomati and South Tripura District. He had received information from the SDPO, Amarpur that some cough syrups had been recovered from the house of Palash Ghosh. He was requested to visit there. Accordingly he went to the house of Palash Ghosh. There some bottles of cough syrups were shown to him by the police officer and those were recovered from the house of Palash Ghosh. PW-5 had seized those bottles in Form No.16 and took those in his custody for filing the necessary case against the appellant. In the cross-examination, nothing could be achieved by the defence. 14. PW-6, Bishu Bijoy Jamatia, another constable has stated that he accompanied the SDPO, Amarpur, Srihnadhan Debnath [PW-9] and the Drug Inspector [PW-5] to the shop of the appellant. On search 8 bottles of Corex syrup were recovered by them. In the cross-examination, nothing could be achieved by the defence. 14. PW-6, Bishu Bijoy Jamatia, another constable has stated that he accompanied the SDPO, Amarpur, Srihnadhan Debnath [PW-9] and the Drug Inspector [PW-5] to the shop of the appellant. On search 8 bottles of Corex syrup were recovered by them. At some point of time during that search, in the courtyard of the appellant, he tried to kill one constable, the informant [PW-1] by throttling. Somehow PW-6 and some other persons managed to rescue the said constable [PW-1] from the clutch of the appellant. 15. PW-7, Soma Barman was a member of the said team which carried out the search. She has categorically stated of the occurrence of assault by the appellant on PW-1 and in the cross-examination she did not change or mince any word. 16. PW-8, Dr. Sanghamitra Das is an independent and ex-pert witness. She has stated that she had examined the victim namely Uttam Debbarma [PW-1] in Amarpur Sub-Divisional Hospital with history of physical assault. She found tenderness and swelling with scratch mark over the left side of his neck. There was severe tenderness over his left chest wall. No other injury was however detected. She identified the injury report [Exbt.2] that she prepared on the basis of her observation. In the cross-examination, she had admitted that in the report the age of injuries has not been mentioned. Even it has been stated that injuries which she found on the person of Uttam Debbarma [PW-1] may be self-inflicted injuries. 17. PW-9, Krishnadhan Debnath, a Sub-Inspector of police of Birganj police station, investigated the case and he has narrated in the trial how he had conducted the investigation and finally submitted the chargesheet. During the cross-examination, on impartial investigation, the defence projected the episode that the two witness namely Sajal Majumder and Taher Hossen were not examined in the investigation nor was cited as the witness for supporting the case of prosecution. But when the court verified the case diary, it was found that both the witnesses were examined during the investigation and their statements as recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C were available. That apart, he has asserted that: “It is not a fact that as I was a witness of the case so, I conducted a biased investigation.” He has denied that the investigation was perfunctory. 18. That apart, he has asserted that: “It is not a fact that as I was a witness of the case so, I conducted a biased investigation.” He has denied that the investigation was perfunctory. 18. PW-10, Swapan Paul, accompanied PW-5 during the search. He has stated that 77 bottles of corex were recovered from the house of the appellant. In the cross-examination, he did not falter at all. 19. PW-11, Sajal Majumder has stated in the trial that 77 bottles of corex were recovered from the hut of the appellant in their presence. The SDPO prepared the document of seizure and asked him to put a signature. Beyond that he has not stated anything and for that reason the prosecution has impressed the court to declare him hostile to the prosecution case. 20. PW-12, Taher Hossain though is a seizure witness but he denied to have any substantive knowledge of the seizure. He has stated on asking of the police that he had just signed on a piece of blank paper. 21. This court has scrutinized the injury report as prepared by PW-8 meticulously. In the report the result of the examination has been recorded in the following manner: (i) Case and Symptoms: alleged physical assault tenderness and swelling and scratch mark over the (L) side of the neck. (ii) Severe tenderness over (L) chest wall and pain white swelling and SOB, severe chest pain also found by her. Except those injuries she did not locate any further injuries during her examination. All the injuries according to PW-8 are simple in nature. 22. The objection as raised in this appeal by the appellant, on the first blush, may appear very charming but when it is tested on the touchstone of the evidence recorded in the trial, that is found to be hollow inasmuch as PW-9 [the investigating officer] during the cross-examination, has denied that he was witness to the occurrence. On scrutiny of the entire record, this court did not find even a single statement against the informant. Perhaps he had intended to imply that though he was the part of the contingent, but he did not see the occurrence. That apart, even if PW-9 was made part of the investigation, this cannot by itself render the investigation irregular inasmuch as he did not claim knowledge of particular fact as an independent witness. 23. Perhaps he had intended to imply that though he was the part of the contingent, but he did not see the occurrence. That apart, even if PW-9 was made part of the investigation, this cannot by itself render the investigation irregular inasmuch as he did not claim knowledge of particular fact as an independent witness. 23. This court is of the view that the decision of the apex court as relied by Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel in Mohan Lal vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 2018 SC 3853 may not have any relevance in the case in hand. In Mohan Lal (supra), the apex court has observed that a fair trial to an accused is a constitutional guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution, it would be a hollow promise if the investigation ‘in a NDPS case were not to be fair’ or it raises serious questions about its fairness, apparent on the face of the investigation. Where it is the reverse burden of proof, the onus will lie on the prosecution to demonstrate on the face of the record that the investigation was fair, judicious and under no circumstances there may rise doubts about its veracity. Obligation of laying proof beyond reasonable doubt will take its course within the ambit of fair investigation, in absence of which, there can be no fair trial. If the investigation itself is unfair, to require the accused to demonstrate prejudice will be rhetoric, fraught with danger of vesting arbitrary powers in the police-which phenomenon may well lead to false implication. Investigation in such a case would then become farcical. Such Any interpretation, contrary thereto, has to be avoided. Having relied that observation, Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has quite strenuously contended that the investigation was fair and has to be proved by the prosecution, not by the accused person. 24. This court can not have any disagreement with that aspect of the matter, but to shift the reverse burden on the prosecution some fundamental facts are to be laid by the accused showing either the investigation was bias, unfair and irregular. Unless that fundamental burden is discharged by the accused, discharge of reverse burden will not come into play. 24. This court can not have any disagreement with that aspect of the matter, but to shift the reverse burden on the prosecution some fundamental facts are to be laid by the accused showing either the investigation was bias, unfair and irregular. Unless that fundamental burden is discharged by the accused, discharge of reverse burden will not come into play. In this case, one suggestion during the cross-examination of PW-9 was made by the defence and that suggestion was squarely responded by the investigating officer [PW-9] stating that he was not witness to any fact relevant for that investigation. Thereafter, the defence did not proceed further. So far the other objections as raised by the appellant are concerned are that not bringing in the GD at the time of going out or coming back on record dented by the prosecution plea seriously. But the reply made by PW-2, is that it is their practice that whenever they go out of the police station or come back, the entire fact is entered in the GD. The defence did not proceed further, such as, by asking for the station diary (GD) to be produced to prove the contrary. The other objection that has been raised is that the informant was not discharging the public duty and hence the offence will not come under Section 332 of the IPC. The superior officers came to the trial as the witnesses and categorically stated that they had deputed the informant to a particular duty and he was discharging the duty when he was assaulted by the appellant. 25. Finally, Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has raised a question that the age of injuries are not clearly mentioned in the injury report and PW-8 has stated, those injuries can be self-inflicted. In this regard, ocular evidence is dominant. In this juncture, Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has tried and laboured hard to dissect and to contend that all the witnesses were the official witnesses and there was no independent witness. It has been now well settled by the apex court that simply because the police officers in a particular transaction had been the witness, the evidence introduced cannot be thrown out for they were the police personnel, unless it is shown that there is intentional malice in implicating the informant. Such malice is completely absent in the evidence in this case. 26. Such malice is completely absent in the evidence in this case. 26. Having observed thus, this court does not find any infirmity in the finding of conviction or in the proportionality of the sentence. Therefore the appeal fails and is dismissed. Send down the LCRs forthwith.