JUDGMENT : BIBHAS RANJAN DE, J. 1. The instant criminal revision application has been preferred assailing the judgment and order dated 31.05.2019 passed by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Dinhata, Cooch behar in connection with Criminal Appeal No. 06(D) of 2018 corresponding to CIS No. 06 of 2018 wherein Ld. Additional Sessions Judge affirmed the judgment and order dated 29.08.2018 passed by Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (for short ACJM), 2nd Court, Dinhata in connection with G.R. Case No. 89 of 2007 corresponding to T.R. Case No. 255 of 2015 arising out of Dinhata Police Station Case no. 78 of 2007 dated 21.02.2007 under Sections 342/323/325/326/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) wherein the Ld. ACJM was pleased to held the appellants guilty of committing offences punishable under Section 323 & 341 of the IPC and accordingly pronounced sentence of imprisonment for 3 months for commission of offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC and also imprisonment for 15 days for commission of offence punishable under Section 341 of the IPC and also directed the said two period of sentences to run concurrently. Background: 2. This case was initiated by an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.) on 20.02.2007 before the Court of Ld. ACJM, 2nd Court, Dinhata, by the defacto complainant namely Paresh Chandra Barman alleging inter-alia that on 18.02.2007 at about 7/7.30 a.m. when the defacto complainant,his mother and his brothers were going to the Tobacoo field, all the accused being armed with motor cycle chain unleashed an attack on the defacto complainant, his mother and his brothers causing the mother of the defacto complainant serious injury and two brothers namely Brojen Barman and Pravas Barman bleeding injury on ear and fractured bleeding injury on head respectively which the Ld. ACJM, 2nd Court, Dinhata, in tern, was pleased to forward to the Dinhata police station for investigation. 3. A specific case was started under Dinhata PS Case No. 78 of 2007 dated 21.02.2007 under Section 342/323/325/326/307/34 of the IPC and after investigation charge sheet was submitted under Section 341/323/324/34 of the IPC. 4. Ld. ACJM, 2nd Court, Dinhata took cognizance of the offence. 3. A specific case was started under Dinhata PS Case No. 78 of 2007 dated 21.02.2007 under Section 342/323/325/326/307/34 of the IPC and after investigation charge sheet was submitted under Section 341/323/324/34 of the IPC. 4. Ld. ACJM, 2nd Court, Dinhata took cognizance of the offence. In course of trial prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses namely Paresh Chandra Barman/ defacto complainant as PW-1, Brojobala Barman/ mother of PW-1 as PW-2, Pravas Barman/ brother of PW-1 as PW-3, Dinesh Roy/Independent witness as PW-4, Sefali Adhikari/Independent witness as PW-5, Uttam Roy/neighbour (Independent witness) as PW-6, Soumojit Ray/Medical Officer posted at Dinhata Sub Divisional Hospital as PW-7, Netai Barman/neighbour (Independent witness) as PW-8, Jibon Krishna Das/retired Police Officer then posted as S.I. at Dinhata Police Station as PW-9 (I.O. of this case) and Brajen Barman/brother of the defacto complainant as PW-10. 5. In course of evidence some documents were admitted in evidence which are as follows: (i) Exhibit 1 Written complaint (ii) Exhibit ½ Endorsement on the FIR (iii) Exhibit 2 Treatment sheet of Brojobala Barman (PW-2)/ mother of PW-1 (iv) Exhibit 3 Treatment sheet of Pravas Barman (PW-3)/brother of PW-1 (v) Exhibit 4 Treatment sheet of Brajen Barman (PW-10)/brother of the defacto complainant (vi) Exhibit 5 Formal FIR (vii) Exhibit 6 Sketch map with index 6. Ld. Trial Judge after evaluation of evidence particularly relying on the evidence of injured eye witnesses, found all the petitioners guilty of committing offence under Sections 341/323/34 of the IPC and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for 3 months for commission of offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC and also imprisonment for 15 days for commission of offence punishable under Section 341 of the IPC and also directed the said two period of sentences to run concurrently. 7. Being aggrieved, by the said judgment petitioners preferred an appeal before the Ld. Sessions Judge, which in tern was transferred to Additional Sessions Judge, Dinhata for disposal. Ld. Judge after evaluating the evidence affirmed the judgment and order passed by the Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-2, Dinahata. Arguments Advanced: 8. Ld. Counsel, Mr. Arnab Saha, appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended as follows: (i) Offending weapon was not seized. (ii) No sketch map was prepared. (iii) The doctor who initially treated the injured has not been examined. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-2, Dinahata. Arguments Advanced: 8. Ld. Counsel, Mr. Arnab Saha, appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended as follows: (i) Offending weapon was not seized. (ii) No sketch map was prepared. (iii) The doctor who initially treated the injured has not been examined. (iv) PW-1 is not the eye-witness because of contradictory statement in the FIR and evidence of oath. (v) Scribe of the FIR was not examined in this case. (vi) There are lots of contradictions regarding place of occurrence. (vii) No injury report was filed according to evidence of PW-7 (Doctor). 9. In support of his contention, Mr. Saha has relied on the cases which are as follows: (i) Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan vs. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke, MANU/SC/0040/2015 (ii) Samit Kumar Ghosal vs. State of West Bengal and Another, 2023 SCC Online Cal. 2128 10. Per Contra, Ld. Counsel, Mr. Sourav Ganguly, appearing on behalf of the State has supported the judgment impugned submitting inter alia that all the injured eye witnesses implicated the petitioners/convicts and there is no reason to disbelieve their evidence in any circumstances as they are not supposed to implicate the petitioners falsely instead of real culprits. Analysis: 11. Before delving into the merit of this case, I would like to focus on the argument advanced on behalf of Mr. Saha who nosed around adverse effect of non compliance of Section 154(1) & (3) of Cr.P.C. in dealing with an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. 12. In Samit Kumar Ghosal (supra) this Court dealt with a judgment and order passed by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge 11th Court, Alipore whereby order passed by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court Alipore in connection with B.G.R. 3057 of 2008 was set aside. 13. In that case, Ld. Magistrate forwarded an application under Section 156(3) to Jadavpur Police Station for investigation unlike this case at hand where judgment and order of conviction was challenged. Therefore, it appears that appellants of this case neither preferred any criminal motion before the Ld. Sessions Judge nor preferred any application under Section 482 before the High Court at the initial stage of proceeding. 14. Therefore, it appears that appellants of this case neither preferred any criminal motion before the Ld. Sessions Judge nor preferred any application under Section 482 before the High Court at the initial stage of proceeding. 14. In the present case, it is not the case of the appellants/convicts that they have been prejudiced by the alleged non-compliance of Section 154 (1) & (3) of Cr.P.C. at the time of forwarding an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate to the jurisdictional Police Station. I am of the opinion that plea of non-compliance of Provision of Section 154(1) & (3) of the Cr.P.C. cannot be taken by the appellants/convicts after participating throughout trial which ended in conviction. 15. Mr. Saha relied on Sanjaysinh (supra) wherein Hon’ble Apex Court held that unless the finding of the Court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material, the Courts may not interfere with the decision in exercise of their revisional Jurisdiction. 16. In this case, prosecution examined all three injured (PW-2, PW-3 & PW-10) witnesses who corroborated each other regarding alleged assault at the behest of all the petitioners/convicts. 17. PW-1 (complainant) has testified that on 18.02.2007 his mother and two brothers (PW-2, PW-3 & PW-10) had been to the tobacco field while all the petitioners assaulted them with iron chain. In effect they sustained bleeding injury and were shifted to Gosani Mari Hospital wherefrom all the injured were referred to Dinhata Mahakuma Hospital where they got admitted and treated. 18. In cross-examination of PW-1 some questions were suggested regarding place of occurrence and thereby an attempt was made to create a dent on the actual place of occurrence i.e. either on the way to tobacco field or on the tobacco filed itself. PW-1 further disclosed few names of the villagers (eye-witnesses). 19. From the sketch map with index it is found that the incident of assault took place in front of house of one Paresh Chandra Barman (PW-1). Therefore, it appears that the incident took place on the way to tobacco field which was further corroborated by the PW-1 in his cross-examination. 20. Now I propose to evaluate the evidence of injured eye witnesses (PW-2/PW-3/PW-10). Therefore, it appears that the incident took place on the way to tobacco field which was further corroborated by the PW-1 in his cross-examination. 20. Now I propose to evaluate the evidence of injured eye witnesses (PW-2/PW-3/PW-10). PW-2, mother of the complainant, has deposed that while they were going to tobacco filed all the accused assaulted them with a motor cycle chain. On hearing their alarm villagers came to place of occurrence. She was taken to Gosani Mari Hospital and thereafter to Dinhata Hospital. She denied all the suggestions put to her during cross-examination. 21. PW-3, brother of the complainant also testified that while they were proceeding to tobacco field all accused/convicts assaulted them and they sustained bleeding injury and were treated at Gosani Mari Hospital and thereafter to Dinhata Hospital for treatment. 22. PW-10, another brother of the complainant harped on the same string of assault by the accused/convicts. 23. PW-4 & PW-6 has deposed that they heard about the incident. PW-5 did not support the prosecution case by stating that he had neither seen nor did he have any knowledge about the incident. 24. PW-8, neighbour/independent witness has stated that on hearing hue and cry he rushed to the place of occurrence and saw the accused/convicts assaulting mother (PW-2) of the complainant (PW-1). 25. Though, in his cross-examination he has stated that he reached place of occurrence after the incident for the reason best known to him but from the evidence of PW-8 it is clear that there was an incident on the alleged date. 26. PW-7, who was then working as Medical Officer posted at Dinhata Sub Divisional Hospital, deposed that on 18.02.2007 at about 6.40 p.m. he examined Brojen Barman (PW-10) who had lacerated injury on his left ear and had abrasion on his left hand and left forearm. He further deposed that on the very same date he also examined one Broja Bala Barman (PW-2) who had injury in her left parietal region and abrasion in her forehead and haematoma in her left hand. PW-7 continued that he also examined Pravas Barman (PW-3) who had lacerated injury in the left portion of his head. PW-7 further added that all the injured persons disclosed history of assault stating that an accused namely Krishna assaulted them with motor bike chain. 27. PW-7 continued that he also examined Pravas Barman (PW-3) who had lacerated injury in the left portion of his head. PW-7 further added that all the injured persons disclosed history of assault stating that an accused namely Krishna assaulted them with motor bike chain. 27. In a recent judgment of Balu Sudam Khalde and Another vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC Online SC 355 Hon’ble Apex Court laid down principles for appreciation of evidence of an injured eye witness which is quoted below: “26. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be appreciated, the under-noted legal principles enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in mind: (a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition. (b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused. (c) The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly. (d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions. (e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence. (f) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded. 27. In assessing the value of the evidence of the eyewitnesses, two principal considerations are whether, in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe their presence at the scene of occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for them to witness the facts deposed to by them and secondly, whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence. In respect of both these considerations, circumstances either elicited from those witnesses themselves or established by other evidence tending to improbabilise their presence or to discredit the veracity of their statements, will have a bearing upon the value which a Court would attach to their evidence. In respect of both these considerations, circumstances either elicited from those witnesses themselves or established by other evidence tending to improbabilise their presence or to discredit the veracity of their statements, will have a bearing upon the value which a Court would attach to their evidence. Although in cases where the plea of the accused is a mere denial, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has to be examined on its own merits, where the accused raise a definite plea or put forward a positive case which is inconsistent with that of the prosecution, the nature of such plea or case and the probabilities in respect of it will also have to be taken into account while assessing the value of the prosecution evidence.” 28. Ld. Trial Court relied on the evidence of injured witness in terms of corroboration by the doctor who treated all three injured witnesses. In the case at hand, the accused could not raise any definite plea or put forward a positive case which is inconsistent with that of the prosecution. 29. The next line of contention of Mr. Saha is that no independent witness supported the prosecution case and none of the villagers came on the spot on hearing hue and cry, and also they were not examined in this case. 30. I am not impressed by the submission of Mr. Saha in the light of observation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Darya Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1968 SC 328, wherein Apex Court has observed as follows: “12. It is well-known that in villages where murders are committed as a result of factions existing in the village or in consequence of family feuds, independent villagers are generally reluctant to give evidence because they are afraid that giving evidence might invite the wrath of the assailants and might expose them to very serious risks. It is well-known that in villages where murders are committed as a result of factions existing in the village or in consequence of family feuds, independent villagers are generally reluctant to give evidence because they are afraid that giving evidence might invite the wrath of the assailants and might expose them to very serious risks. It is quite true that it is the duty of a citizen to assist the prosecution by giving evidence and helping the administration of criminal law to bring the offender to book, but it would be wholly unrealistic to suggest that if the prosecution is not able to bring independent witnesses to the Court because they are afraid to give evidence, that itself should be treated as an infirmity in the prosecution case so as to justify the defence contention that the evidence actually adduced should be disbelieved actually adduced should be disbelieved on that ground alone without examining its merits.” 31. On careful scrutiny of the evidence of injured witnesses (PW-2, 3 & 10) together with the medical evidence i.e. evidence of Doctor (PW-7) and bed head tickets (exhibit 2, 3 & 4) I am convinced that the medical evidence was consistent with the ocular evidence and I can safely hold that to that extent it corroborated the direct evidence proffered by the injured eye witnesses. The credibility of the witnesses was rightly dealt with by the Ld. Trial Judge with the assistance of maxim “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.” 32. At the cost of repetition it would be relevant to mention that there is no material discrepancy in the medical and ocular evidence. 33. The ratio of Sanjaysinh (supra), in my opinion, is not at all applicable in the case at hand where judgment is not revised on any of the grounds held by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 34. In the overall view of the matter I am convinced that no case is made out by the appellants to interfere with the judgment and order 29.08.2018 passed by the Ld. Trial Court which was affirmed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge via order dated 31.05.2019. 35. As a sequel, this revisional application fails and the same is hereby dismissed. 36. Petitioners/appellants are directed to surrender before the trial Court within 3 weeks from date, to suffer sentence. 37. Trial Court record be transmitted back to the Trial Court immediately. 38. Trial Court which was affirmed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge via order dated 31.05.2019. 35. As a sequel, this revisional application fails and the same is hereby dismissed. 36. Petitioners/appellants are directed to surrender before the trial Court within 3 weeks from date, to suffer sentence. 37. Trial Court record be transmitted back to the Trial Court immediately. 38. All parties to this revisional application shall act on the server copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Court.