JUDGMENT : SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J. 1. Heard Ms. A.N. Hussain, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. P.S. Lahakar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State. 2. This is an appeal u/s 374 read with Section 382 of Code of Criminal Procedure [Cr.PC for short] against the impugned judgment & order dated 20.03.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chirang at Kajolgaon in connection with Sessions Case No. 1 of 2022 convicting the accused/appellant u/s 324 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC for short] and sentencing him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation. Jayanta Basumatary will hereinafter be referred as the appellant or the accused. 3 . The genesis of the case was that on 21.01.2020 at about 8:30 PM, the appellant came to the rented house of the victim [the appellant’s wife] and attempted to kill her by stabbing her on her chest and stomach with a dagger. The victim was immediately taken to Lower Assam Hospital at Bongaigaon for treatment. This resulted in the delay in lodgement of FIR, which was lodged on 04.02.2020. 4 . On receipt of the FIR, a Dhaligaon P.S. Case No. 31/2020 was registered u/s 448/326/307/506 of the IPC and the Investigating Officer [I/O for short] was entrusted with the investigation. 5. The I/O went to the place of occurrence, prepared a sketch-map and recorded the statements of witnesses and forwarded two witnesses for recording their statements u/s 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C for short). On completion of investigation, the I/O submitted charge-sheet against the appellant u/s 448/326/307/506 IPC. 6. At the commencement of trial a formal charge u/s 326/307 IPC was framed, and read over and explained to the appellant, who abjured his guilt and claimed innocence. 7. To substantiate its stance, the prosecution adduced the evidence of 6 [six] witnesses and the defence cross-examined the witnesses but failed to refute the charges. On the incriminating materials projected by the prosecution through the evidence of the witnesses, several questions were asked to the appellant u/s 313 Cr.PC and his answers were recorded. The appellant adduced his evidence and the evidence of Nurbox Ali as DW-2. 8. On the incriminating materials projected by the prosecution through the evidence of the witnesses, several questions were asked to the appellant u/s 313 Cr.PC and his answers were recorded. The appellant adduced his evidence and the evidence of Nurbox Ali as DW-2. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant laid stress in her argument that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the eye-witness PW-2 is a close relative of the informant (victim) and is thus an interested witness. The delay of 13 days in lodgement of the FIR was erroneously dismissed by the learned Trial Court, who ignored the fact that the evidence of the Medical Officer, PW-5 depicts that the victim was admitted in the hospital at 10:25 PM on 21.01.2020 and was discharged after 3 days. Thus delay of 13 days was not properly explained by the victim. This delay in lodgement of the FIR leaves sufficient proof for fabrication and manipulation of the FIR. It is further contended that the learned Trial Court has failed to take into consideration that the prosecution has not cited the husband of PW-2, her sister-in-law, house- maid and son as witnesses despite the fact that they were present in the house at the time of the incident. Any of the family members or the residents of the household could have easily informed the police about the incident. The learned Trial Court has also ignored the fact that the eye-witnesses as well as the victim failed to identify the weapon of offence marked as MO1. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant also laid stress in her argument that there are serious contradictions between the depositions of PW-1 and PW-2, as the victim deposed in her cross-examination that at the time of the incident they were having dinner and the gate was opened by a girl staying with PW-2 whereas on the contrary PW-2 deposed that the gate was opened by the informant’s son. It is further argued that despite the fact that PW-3 has stated that he found the informant lying in a pool of blood, no blood stained clothes were seized by the police and this has been admitted by the I/O in his cross-examination. 10. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor laid stress in his argument that there are incriminating materials and the learned Trial Court has correctly passed the order. 10. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor laid stress in his argument that there are incriminating materials and the learned Trial Court has correctly passed the order. The PW-2’s statement u/s 164 Cr.PC has been substantiated by her depositions in the Court. The cross-examination of PW-2 clearly reveals that she has vehemently denied that she is related to victim. She is a eye-witness and she has elaborately described the incident which clearly reflects that the appellant has committed the offence. The learned Trial Court has correctly passed the judgment and the decision does not call for interference. 11. The learned Trial Court has decided this case on the following points:- “i. Whether on 21.01.2020 at about 8:30 PM the accused voluntarily caused grievous hurt to the informant by means of a sharp weapon? ii. Whether on the same date and time the accused attempted to commit murder of the victim/informant?” To decide this case in its proper prospective, the evidence is re-appreciated. 12. The victim deposed as PW-1 that the accused is her husband and the incident occurred on 21.01.2020. The accused used to assault her whenever she used to ask for money for children’s education and also on small issues. On 20.01.2020 her husband tried to assault her with a dagger and then she went to Rebati Brahma’s (PW2’s) house and started residing in her house as a tenant. On 21.01.2020 at about 8 PM after dinner, her husband entered into her rented house all of a sudden and attacked her and stabbed her with a pointed knife on her stomach and chest. Then her Landlord Rebati Brahma somehow managed to get hold of her husband. Then she went to another room and called her brother over phone. Her brother Kenedy Basumatary (PW-3) came and took her to the Lower Assam Hospital at Bongaigaon. She further underwent treatment in ICU for two days. She could not recall the number of days she spent in the hospital for treatment. 13. PW-1 further deposed that the police went to the hospital to record her statement. On 04.02.2020, she lodged the FIR marked as Ext.-P1/PW-1. She has affixed her signature as P-1(1)/PW-1. She further deposed that the police seized the dagger from Rebati’s house in her presence vide seizure list Ext.- P3/PW-2. She has affixed her signature as Ext.-P3(1)/PW-1. 13. PW-1 further deposed that the police went to the hospital to record her statement. On 04.02.2020, she lodged the FIR marked as Ext.-P1/PW-1. She has affixed her signature as P-1(1)/PW-1. She further deposed that the police seized the dagger from Rebati’s house in her presence vide seizure list Ext.- P3/PW-2. She has affixed her signature as Ext.-P3(1)/PW-1. However, PW-1 has stated that Material Exhibit-MO-1/PW-2 is not the knife/dagger which was seized by the police. The cross-examination of the witnesses will be discussed at the appropriate stage. 14. Smt. Rebati Brahma deposed as PW-2 that the incident occurred in the year 2020. The informant used to stay in her house as tenant. After staying in her house for about 2/3 months, the informant went back to her matrimonial house. Again, after about 15 days, the informant returned to her rented house. On the day of the incident at about 8/9 PM, they were having dinner, when the appellant came and knocked the gate. The informant’s son opened the gate. The appellant entered into the house armed with a pointed knife. Suddenly the appellant stabbed the informant on her chest and stomach.The informant was struggling to save herself from the appellant. When she saw the informant being attacked by the appellant with a dagger, she tried to protect the informant. Then they went to the veranda and continued their fight. Her children called the neighbours. Meanwhile the accused/appellant went away. Thereafter, the brother of the informant came and took her to the hospital. PW- 2 has also deposed that she was forwarded to the Magistrate to record her statement. She proved her statement as Ext.-P2(1)/PW-2 and Ext.-P2(2)/PW-2. PW-2 has further deposed that the police seized the pointed knife used by the appellant vide seizure list Ext.-P3/PW-2. She has proved the signature on the seizure list as Ext.-P3(1)/PW-2. However, PW-2 has also failed to identify material Ext.-MO1/PW-2 as the knife used by the appellant to stab the informant. 15. The cross-examination of PW-2 will be discussed at the appropriate stage. Kenedy Basumatary, PW-3, is the informant’s cousin and he deposed that on the day of the incident, at about 8.30 pm., the informant called him over phone and informed him that the appellant had stabbed her with a dagger and asked for his help. He immediately rushed to Rebati’s house which is at a distance of 3 kms from his house. He immediately rushed to Rebati’s house which is at a distance of 3 kms from his house. He did not find the appellant in the house but he noticed the informant sitting on the floor in a pool of blood and she was dabbing her abdomen, with a piece of cloth. There were injury marks in her tummy as well as in her chest. He (PW-3) took the informant to the Lower Assam Hospital, Bongaigaon in his car and admitted her in the ICU. The informant was in the ICU for two days, but he could not recall the number of days the informant underwent treatment in the hospital. 16. PW-2 further deposed that there were frequent squabbles and altercations between the informant and the appellant over financial and other household issues. The police produced him before the Magistrate and his statement was recorded. He identified his statement recorded by the Magistrate as Ext-4. 17. PW-4 Dwimalu Narzary denied any knowledge about the incident. The Medical Officer Dr. Rajani Kanta Sarma deposed as PW-5 that on 21.01.2020 at about 10:25 pm., he examined the informant and found the following:- “1. cut injury of size 3.5 cm x 1.5 cm on left back. Injury is grievous and caused by sharp cutting weapon. 2. Penetrative injury over left lower abdomen and size is 3.5 cm x 7 cm. This injury is also grievous in nature and caused by sharp cutting weapon. 3. Cut injury over left thumb. It is simple in nature caused by the light sharp cutting weapon”. 18. The medical officer has further deposed that the injuries were dangerous in nature. In his cross-examination, he testified that the victim was not brought under police requisition. On 17.02.2020, he received a letter from the police at Dhaligaon, but, it is not mentioned in the report that the patient was admitted in the ICU. He did not mention the colour of the injury as the injuries were recent injuries. He has denied that he did not mention in his report that the injuries were caused within 24 hours. He has admitted that he did not mention in his report that the injuries were dangerous to the life of the victim. He has admitted that the injuries were 100% curable. He has denied that he did not mention in his report that the injuries were caused within 24 hours. He has admitted that he did not mention in his report that the injuries were dangerous to the life of the victim. He has admitted that the injuries were 100% curable. He has also admitted that it may be possible that the injuries might have been caused as a result of a fall on a sharp-edged weapon. 19. The Investigating Officer, Sri Mangal Daimary, deposed as PW-6 that on 05.02.2020, he was posted at Dhaligaon, PS, as attached officer and on receipt of the FIR, the Officer-In-Charge endorsed him with the investigation of this case. He recorded the statement of the informant who was present at the police station. He went to the place of occurrence at about 10.30 p.m. The informant and her landlord showed him the place of occurrence and he prepared a sketch map of the same. He recorded the statements of the witnesses and seized one iron dagger as shown by the landlord. The dagger was about 12 inches in length, with a wooden handle and he seized the same in presence of witnesses. He has stated that the dagger seized as Material Exhibit MO-1/PW2 is not the dagger which he had seized from the place of occurrence as shown by the landlord. 20. The Investigating Officer, PW-6 further testified that on 17.02.2020, he went to the Lower Assam Hospital at Bongaigaon, where the informant was admitted and collected the medical papers. On 18.02.2020, he apprehended the appellant from his house and interrogated him. He arrested the appellant at about 11.30 a.m. and forwarded the eyewitnesses namely, Rebati Brahma and Kenedy Basumatary for recording their statements under section 164 Cr.P.C.. On conclusion of investigation, he submitted charge-sheet on 29.02.2022. He has proved the seizure list as Ext- P3/PW-3 and his signature as Ext -P3 (3)/PW-6. He has proved his signature on the sketch map as Ext-P6 (1)/PW-6 and his signature on the charge sheet as Ext-P7 (1)/PW-6. 21. The appellant deposed as DW-1 that he is married to the informant for about 22 years and they are blessed with a son and a daughter. His daughter resides with him and he has retired from service in the year 2017. After his retirement, there was a dispute regarding financial assistance to the informant. 21. The appellant deposed as DW-1 that he is married to the informant for about 22 years and they are blessed with a son and a daughter. His daughter resides with him and he has retired from service in the year 2017. After his retirement, there was a dispute regarding financial assistance to the informant. As he did not provide financial assistance to the informant, the informant left her matrimonial home on several occasions. He also lodged a complaint before the police. He purchased two plots of land in the name of the informant and also opened a beauty parlour for her at Dhaligaon. He also opened a fixed deposit account for rupees five lacs (5,00,000/-) for the informant. On 21.01.2020 at about 7.00 p.m when he returned home from the bazaar, he did not find the informant at home. He noticed that the informant went away with all the land documents and money. Then he called Rebati Brahma and when he learnt that the informant was in her house, he went to Rebati Brahma's house along with Nurbox Ali. He found his wife in Rebati Brahma's house and he was surrounded by 4/5 people in the house and they tried to assault him. After he returned home, he lodged the FIR. Ext- D1/DW-1 is the certified copy of the FIR. He has proved that Ext-D2/DW-1 as the format of the FIR. He has also proved another FIR marked as Ext-D3/DW-1 and the format of the same FIR as Ext-D4/DW-1. 22. Nurbox Ali, deposed as DW-2 that the informant is her neighbour. On 21.01.2020, at about 7.00 p.m the appellant informed him that his wife had deserted him. The appellant requested him to accompany him to the house of Qutub Ali. He along with the appellant went to Qutub Ali’s house and they waited at the main gate. At that time he noticed 3/4 persons inside Qutub Ali’s house and they surrounded the appellant and were talking in Boro language. Thereafter, the appellant came out and proceeded to his house on a scooty. He learned that the appellant lodged an FIR against the informant and Rebati Brahma about the incident. 23. In his cross-examination DW-2 deposed that the appellant has two wives and one wife has been residing at Guwahati and she never visits Rwimupur. Thereafter, the appellant came out and proceeded to his house on a scooty. He learned that the appellant lodged an FIR against the informant and Rebati Brahma about the incident. 23. In his cross-examination DW-2 deposed that the appellant has two wives and one wife has been residing at Guwahati and she never visits Rwimupur. DW- 1 in his cross-examination testified that the informant is his second wife, whereas his first wife resides with him. This statement is not similar to the testimony of DW-2, as DW-2 stated that his first wife resides in Guwahati whereas on the contrary the appellant who is a resident of Bongaigaon, Rwimupur stated that his first wife resides with him. The appellant also could not recall the date when his wife deserted him. 24. Appellant stated in his cross-examination that the informant used to demand rupees 10,000/- as monthly maintenance. He also affirmed through his cross examination that his wife left his house with gold ornaments and cash of rupees 1,50,000/-. The FIR exhibited by DW-1 reveals that the Ext-D1/DW-1 is an FIR which was lodged on 18.02.2020 i.e., after the incident of the instant case whereas the other FIR Ext-DW-3/DW-1 was lodged on 02.11.2019 i.e., prior to the incident of this case. A marital disharmony between both the parties cannot be ruled out. 25. The appellant was also impelled to lodge an FIR against his wife, but this does not justify the aggressive assault on the victim. It is true that there are several contradictions between the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, but the injury report Ext-P-5 clearly depicts that the informant Rita Bala Basumatary has sustained cut injuries on her back, left lower abdomen and left thumb. The injuries on her back and lower abdomen were described as grievous injuries whereas the cut injury on her thumb was described as a simple injury. She was examined by the Doctor on 21.01.2020 and she was discharged from the hospital on 24.01.2020. Thus, the Trial Court held that the injuries were simple in nature and not grievous injuries. The decision relating to the nature of injury can be best made by the Trial Court after scrutinising the medical report and the opinion of the doctor. Here, in this case, I record my concurrence to the decision of the Trial Court relating to the nature of the injury. 26. The decision relating to the nature of injury can be best made by the Trial Court after scrutinising the medical report and the opinion of the doctor. Here, in this case, I record my concurrence to the decision of the Trial Court relating to the nature of the injury. 26. This decision of the Trial Court does not require any interference because the evidence of an injured person can be considered as credible evidence. An injured person will never let her assailant go scot free and unpunished by falsely implicating another person, be it her husband or any other person. The argument that PW-2 is related to PW-1 holds no water. PW-2 has denied in her cross-examination that the victim is a distant relative. In sync with the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 has also stated that the incident took place at the time when they were having dinner in the house. PW-1's husband entered into the house and attacked her. They have stated in concert that PW-1 sustained injuries on her stomach and chest which has been described by a medical officer. It was the prosecution's fault that the seized weapon of offence was not produced in connection with this case. The failure to produce the weapon of offence does not cause a dent in the evidence when the evidence is found to be credible and uncontroverted. No major contradictions could be elicited through strenuous cross-examination of the victim as per Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. qua section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 (The Evidence Act for short). 27. The victim was cross examined in extenso but the cross-examination of the victim/informant remains uncontroverted. Even the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer also reveals that no contradictions could be elicited through the cross-examination of the victim vis-a-vis the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer. Several questions were asked to the Investigating Officer relating to non-examination of PW-2's husband and maid who were present at the time of their incident. Questions like the victims moral character were also asked to the victim. Apart from certain differences between the statements of the witnesses, no major contradictions could be elicited even through the cross- examination of PW-3. It is true that the victim had to fend for herself as she was attacked by her husband and there was a delay in lodgement of the FIR. 28. Apart from certain differences between the statements of the witnesses, no major contradictions could be elicited even through the cross- examination of PW-3. It is true that the victim had to fend for herself as she was attacked by her husband and there was a delay in lodgement of the FIR. 28. The learned Trial Court has correctly held the appellant guilty of offence under Section 324 IPC as the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim sustained grievous injuries despite the fact that the medical officer, PW-5 had opined the injuries to be grievous in nature. The victim was in the hospital for only the period between 21.01.2020 and 24.01.2020, as per the injury report Ext-P-5. It is also apt to mention that no contradictions could be elicited through the cross-examination of the witnesses PW-2 and PW-3, whose statements were recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate during the stage of investigation. 29. In view of my foregoing discussions, it is thereby held that the learned Trial Court has correctly held the appellant guilty of offence under section 324 IPC. 30. I have also considered the submissions that the appellant is a retired person who was 63 years old at the time of the incident. Much water has flowed under the bridge. I have considered the age of the appellant and the fact that he was behind Bars since 18.02.2020 up to 05.05.2020. 31. The judgment and order dated 20.03.2023 in Sessions Case No. 1/2022 is upheld, and the sentence is scaled down to the period of detention already undergone by the appellant. 32. Appeal is partly allowed. 33. Send back the Trial Court Records.