Judgment : Joymalya Bagchi, J. 1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.07.2015 and 30.07.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Bankura in Sessions Trial no 2(2)/13 arising out of Sessions Case no. 4(11)/12 convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months more. 2. The prosecution case, as alleged, against the appellant is to the effect that on 07.07.2012 around 6.00 a.m, Samapti, the deceased, along with her cousin, Pintu Mondal, P.W. 2, was going to attend a private coaching class. On the way, the appellant accosted them and dragged Samapti by catching hold of her hand and thereafter slashed her neck with knife. Seeing the incident, P.W. 2, fled to the residence of the deceased and informed her family members. Hearing the news, P.W. 1, father of the deceased, and other relations rushed to the spot. The victim was alive and disclosed the incident to them. She was initially shifted to Beliatore Primary Health Centre where she was treated by P.W. 11 and thereafter at BSMC Hospital, Bankura where she breathed her last. 3. On the written complaint of P.W. 1, Beliatore P.S. Case No. 42 of 2012 dated 07.07.2012 under sections 376/511/302 IPC was registered. Appellant was arrested and on his leading statement the weapon of offence, that is, knife, was recovered. 4. In conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and case was committed to the Court of Sessions and transferred to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Bankura for trial and disposal. 5. Charges were framed under sections 376/511/302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. 6. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the course of trial, prosecution examined 16 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. 7. The defence of the appellant was one of innocence and false implication. 8. In conclusion of trial, learned trial judge by judgment and order dated 29.07.2015 and 30.07.2015 convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid. 9. Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for the appellant, submitted that presence of P.W. 2, sole eyewitness, at the place of occurrence is doubtful. 8. In conclusion of trial, learned trial judge by judgment and order dated 29.07.2015 and 30.07.2015 convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid. 9. Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for the appellant, submitted that presence of P.W. 2, sole eyewitness, at the place of occurrence is doubtful. P.W. 1, father of the deceased and de facto complainant, did not state that P.W. 2 was an eyewitness. P.W. 2 was examined 10 days after the incident. Name of the appellant did not transpire either in the injury report or in the inquest report prepared soon after the incident. Evidence of other relation witnesses is inconsistent and contradictory to one another. Oral dying declaration as claimed by the relation witnesses is not supported by independent witnesses P.W. 10 and P.W. 12. Evidence of medical witnesses P.W. 11 and P.W. 13 also improbabilises the possibility of the victim making oral dying declaration. Hence, the appellant is entitled to an order of acquittal. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjoy Bardhan, learned Counsel appearing for the State argued that P.W. 2 is the most natural witness and his evidence is consistent and corroborated by other prosecution witnesses. Presence of P.W. 2 at the place of occurrence is corroborated by P.W. 3 and P.W. 4. Presence of P.W. 2 with the victim at the place of occurrence is also averred in the FIR. Delayed examination of P.W. 2 per se cannot be a ground to disbelieve his evidence which is corroborated by other witnesses. Oral dying declaration has been proved by the prosecution witnesses and the hostile witnesses have been extensively cross-examined with regard to their prior statements to the police. Pursuant to the leading statement of the appellant, the weapon of offence was recovered. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 11. From an analysis of the evidence on record, it appears that the prosecution essentially rests on the eyewitness version of P.W. 2 and the oral dying declaration of the victim. 12. Pursuant to the leading statement of the appellant, the weapon of offence was recovered. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 11. From an analysis of the evidence on record, it appears that the prosecution essentially rests on the eyewitness version of P.W. 2 and the oral dying declaration of the victim. 12. All the relations of the victim, that is, P.W. 1, her father and de facto complainant, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3, cousin and sister respectively, P.W. 4, mother and P.W. 5, uncle have stated in unison that when they arrived at the place of occurrence after being informed by P.W. 2 about the incident, the victim had made an oral dying declaration to them alleging that the appellant had stabbed her in the neck. Their version, however, is not supported by P.W. 10, the driver and owner of the Tata Sumo vehicle which was used to carry the victim and P.W. 12, a local villager who saw P.W. 1 sitting with his injured daughter on his lap at the place of occurrence. 13. It has been argued by the State that P.W. 10 (owner of the Tata Sumo vehicle) was declared hostile and had been confronted with his previous statement to the police officer where he had admitted that the victim had made oral dying declaration implicating the appellant. 14. I would have otherwise been impressed with such submission on behalf of the prosecution but for the medical evidence of P.W. 11, who treated the victim at Beliatore PHC and that of P.W. 13, postmortem doctor. Their evidence gives rise to serious doubt whether the victim after receiving grievous injury on the neck causing penetrating wound and extravasation of blood in and around the larynx would be capable of speech. 15. P.W. 11 deposed that on 07.07.2012 he examined the victim at Beliatore PHC. He found the victim restless and in semi-comatose condition. She was mute. He found multiple cut injuries in the mid line of neck with oozing of blood. The victim was given primary management for neck stabilization and dressing of neck wound. She was referred to BSMCH, Bankura for better treatment. He proved the injury report (Exhibit-10). P.W. 13, PM doctor found the following injuries on the victim:- (1) Incised wound one inch long over medial aspect of left ring finger which extended over its anterior aspects. The victim was given primary management for neck stabilization and dressing of neck wound. She was referred to BSMCH, Bankura for better treatment. He proved the injury report (Exhibit-10). P.W. 13, PM doctor found the following injuries on the victim:- (1) Incised wound one inch long over medial aspect of left ring finger which extended over its anterior aspects. (2) Incised wound 0.7 inch long over anterior aspect of left middle finger corresponding to proximal inter- phalalgeal joint. (3) Incised wound 1 inch long repaired by 3 stitches over the root of left index finger corresponding to metacarpo- phalalgeal joint. (4) Scratch abrasion 1.1 inch long over anteromedial aspect of left forearm, 1.2 inch proximal to wrist. (5) Stitched up wound 1.8 inch long, repaired by two stitches over right side of anterior aspect of neck, 10 inch below vault of skull & 52 inch above right heel. On removal of stitches following 3 stab wounds were seen;- (a) incised stab wound 0.6 inch X 0.2 inch X muscle deep, 51.3 inch above right heel and 0.6 inch right to anterior mid line. (b) Incised stab wound 0.6 inch X 0.2 inch X muscle deep over right side of the neck, 51.7 inch above right heel and 0.4 inch right lateral to mid line. (c) Incised stab wound 0.4 inch X 0.3 inch X muscle deep over anterior aspect of neck, 51.2 inch above right heel and on mid line. On dissection and tracing the tracks of the stab wounds mentioned above those were seen to have pierced the superficial fascia, strap muscle of the neck, deep fascia of the neck, small and large vessels (arteries and veins) and nerves over right side of the neck and terminated by piercing the larynx. 16. On further dissection haematoma as well as extravasation in and around the larynx and mediastinum containing 2130 grams of clotted and liquid blood. The direction of the wounds were from before backwards and a little downwards. The track of the wound was converging in nature. All the injuries show evidence of vital reactions. Scratch abrasions were reddish in colour. Incised wound have regular margins. Extra vasated blood-red in colour was present. Haematoma-red in colour was present. 17. He opined death was due to the above noted injuries ante-mortem and homicidal in nature. The track of the wound was converging in nature. All the injuries show evidence of vital reactions. Scratch abrasions were reddish in colour. Incised wound have regular margins. Extra vasated blood-red in colour was present. Haematoma-red in colour was present. 17. He opined death was due to the above noted injuries ante-mortem and homicidal in nature. He proved the post mortem report and in cross- examination he stated that there was blood in an around larynx and extravasation means infiltration or presence of blood in the muscle and soft tissues of the concerned organ. He admitted that larynx role to play in vocalization or speech. 18. Analyzing the evidence of medical witnesses who found the patient semi- comatose and mute with injuries on her neck piercing the larynx and neck strap muscles which play a role in vocalization, I have grave doubt whether upon receipt of such grave and serious injuries on the neck, the victim was in a position to speak. Although certificate from a medical personnel that the victim was conscious and capable of making a statement is not a sine qua non to accept a dying declaration, a completely different situation would emerge when the medical evidence on record establishes the contrary i.e. incapacity of the victim to make a statement. Hence, in view of the medical evidence on record with regard to the nature of injuries on the neck of the victim affecting her internal organs like larynx which has a direct role to play in her capacity to vocalize, I am of the view deposition of relation witnesses with regard to the dying declaration ought to be taken with a pinch of salt. 19. However, I am convinced with regard to the presence of P.W. 2, cousin of the victim, at the place of occurrence. P.W. 2 unequivocally deposed that he was accompanying his sister on the fateful morning to attend their private tuitions. At that time the appellant confronted them and dragged her sister away. Appellant also threatened him with dire consequences. Thereafter, when the victim tried to free herself from the clutches of the appellant, he struck several blows on her neck with a knife. P.W. 2 rushed to their residence and informed the matter to his uncle, that is, father of the victim. Thereafter, all the relations rushed to the spot and found the victim with a cut injury on the neck. P.W. 2 rushed to their residence and informed the matter to his uncle, that is, father of the victim. Thereafter, all the relations rushed to the spot and found the victim with a cut injury on the neck. Even if one discounts her dying declaration in view of the nature of injury as aforesaid, presence of P.W.2 at the place of occurrence is well established and corroborated by other evidence. P.W. 3, sister of the victim, stated that in the fateful morning Pintu had accompanied the victim Samapti to their private coaching class. Subsequently, Pintu rushed to their residence and informed them about the incident. P.W. 4, mother of the victim has also corroborated the evidence of P.W. 3. 20. It has been argued that P.W. 1, father and de facto complainant had not disclosed in the FIR the fact that Pintu had narrated the incident to them. I have examined the FIR and I find that P.W. 1 had averred in the FIR that his daughter Samapti had left the residence on the fateful morning along with P.W. 2, Pintu and subsequently Pintu had informed them of the incident. Hence, there is no doubt that Pintu had accompanied the victim on the fateful day when she had been assaulted by the appellant. His presence has been noted both in the FIR and in the deposition of the other prosecution witnesses. FIR is not an encyclopaedia of all facts and minor variations in the narration of the incident therein cannot erode the prosecution case with regard to presence of P.W. 2 at the place of occurrence at the time of assault on the victim. 21. Delay in examination of P.W. 2 is remissness on the part of the investigating agency and I give little credence to it in view of his consistent evidence on oath which remained unshaken in cross-examination. The conduct of the said witness in immediately narrating the incident to other witnesses like P.Ws 3 and 4 also adds to his credibility. 22. It has been strenuously argued that name of the appellant as the assailant was not disclosed in the injury report (Exhibit 10) or the inquest report (Exhibit 2/1) prepared by P.W. 15. Victim had suffered a murderous assault and had been immediately shifted to Beliatore Primary Health Centre. 22. It has been strenuously argued that name of the appellant as the assailant was not disclosed in the injury report (Exhibit 10) or the inquest report (Exhibit 2/1) prepared by P.W. 15. Victim had suffered a murderous assault and had been immediately shifted to Beliatore Primary Health Centre. Attention of all the witnesses including her parents was on her treatment and well-being and therefore failure to name the assailant before P.W. 11, treating doctor, cannot be a ground to discount their version in Court. Furthermore, FIR lodged immediately after the incident and prior to the inquest report mentions the incident in details and the appellants as assailants of the victim. As the FIR wherein appellant is named as an accused, preceded holding of inquest by P.W. 15, non-disclosure of name of the appellant in the inquest report does not affect the truthfulness of the prosecution case. It is trite law that inquest is held to determine the cause of death of the victim. Non-disclosure of name of the accused in the said document is not always fatal, particularly when, as in the present case, his name has been transpired in the FIR which had been lodged earlier. [See Surendra Pal & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2010) 9 SCC 399 and Guiram Mondal vs. State of West Bengal (2013) 15 SCC 284 .] In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I uphold the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant. Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 22. The period of detention suffered by the appellants during investigation, enquiry and trial shall be set off from the substantive sentence imposed upon them in terms of Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. Copy of the judgment along with L.C.Rs. be sent down to the trial court at once. Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities.