Gauhati High Court
Noor Mohammad @ Md. Noor Mohammad ... vs State Of Assam on 9 May, 2023
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010006152012
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.A./87/2012
NOOR MOHAMMAD @ MD. NOOR MOHAMMAD ALI
SON OF NUR ALI R/O ANANDA NAGAR P.O. and P.S. NOONMATI, DIST.
KAMRUP M, ASSAM.
VERSUS
STATE OF ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.M H TALUKDAR
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
:: PRESENT ::
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
For the Appellant : Mr. A.R. Sikdar,
Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. B. Sarma,
Addl. P.P., Assam.
Date of Hearing : 27.04.2023.
Date of Judgment : 09.05.2023.
Page No.# 2/6
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)
Heard Mr. A.R. Sikdar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor representing the
State of Assam.
2. This is an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure challenging the conviction of the appellant in Sessions Case
No.158(K-G)/2009.
3. The prosecution case against the appellant is that on 01.11.2000 at
about 1 P.M., the appellant Noor Mohammad had attacked Shri
Harendra Patgiri with a dao. In that incident, Harendra Patgiri sustained
cut injuries on his left hand. In fact, the index finger of his left hand was
chopped off.
4. Smti. Arupa Patgiri, the wife of Shri Harendra Patgiri had lodged the
FIR before police on 02.11.2000.
5. Shri Harendra Patgiri was subjected to medical examination. The
doctor found the following injuries upon him.
(1) Cut injury in left hand with the right and middle finger.
(2) Cut mark on the metacarpo phallengial joint.
(3) Lower part of the index finger is totally cut. Cut part or tip
was not brought to the hospital.
(4) All the above injuries were found in the left hand.
6. The doctor opined that the cut injuries sustained by Shri Harendra
Page No.# 3/6
Patgiri was caused by sharp weapon and the nature of the injuries were
grievous.
7. On conclusion of investigation, police filed the charge sheet against
the appellant.
8. During the trial of the case, the prosecution side examined as many
as 6(six) witnesses including the doctor and the police investigating
officer. The appellant did not examine any witnesses.
9. On the basis of the evidence on record, the trial court arrived at the
impugned finding.
10. I have carefully gone through the prosecution evidence.
11. The first witness is to be examined in this case, is Smti. Arupa Patgiri.
The appellant Noor Mahammad is not known to her since prior to the
occurrence. She has stated that she owned two kathas of land, near the
house of the appellant, where she had cultivated vegetables. According
to Smti. Patgiri, on the day of occurrence at about 1 P.M., the appellant
along with a person named Mrinal Ali attempted to occupy her land. She
has stated that at that moment, she and her husband Harendra Patgiri
were working in their land. Arupa Patgiri has stated that after finishing
their work in the land, they were returning home and while they had
reached their house, the appellant along with some other persons
arrived there and the appellant attacked her husband with a dao. She
has further stated that the dao blow caused injuries on the left hand
palm of her husband and the index finger of his hand was chopped off.
Arupa Patgiri disclosed that after this incident, the appellant ran away.
Arupa Patgiri immediately took her husband to the nearby police station
Page No.# 4/6
from where he was sent to the hospital.
12. In her cross-examination, she admitted that she had a land dispute
with the appellant and the land is in her possession. Arupa Patgiri has
stated that the FIR which she filed, was drafted by the policeman in the
police station and she had put her thumb impression therein. Arupa
Patgiri has explained that the FIR was lodged on the next day of the day
of occurrence because on the day of occurrence, she was busy in
treatment of her husband in the hospital.
13. The second prosecution witness is Shri Harendra Patgiri. He has
stated in his evidence that when the appellant attacked him with a dao,
he tried to resist him by raising his left hand and the dao blow fell on his
palm, causing cut injuries. Harendra Patgiri has stated that the index
finger of his left hand was cut off in that incident.
14. Harendra Patgiri has stated in his cross-examination that police had
collected his chopped off finger
15. The third prosecution witness is Smti. Bimala Dutta. She has stated in
her evidence that she knew nothing about the occurrence. She has
stated that on the day of occurrence, she noticed policemen in her
house who enquired about her name.
16. The fourth prosecution witness is Kalpana Patgiri. She is the sister-in-
law of Arupa Patgiri. She has stated in her evidence that at the relevant
time of the occurrence, she had seen the appellant attacking Harendra
Patgiri with a dao. Kamala Patgiri has stated that she had seen that one
finger of one hand of Harendra Patgiri was cut off.
Page No.# 5/6
17. In her cross-examination, Kalpana Patgiri has stated that she had
seen the occurrence from a distance of about 40/50 feet. She has
reiterated that the appellant had attacked Harendra Patgiri with a dao.
18. The fifth and the sixth prosecution witnesses are the doctor and the
police investigating officer respectively. The doctor spoke about the
medical report and the police investigating officer spoke about the
investigation.
19. On scrupulous perusal of the prosecution evidence, I find that there
are no discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of Harendra
Patgiri. The defence side pointed out that in the FIR it is alleged that
Harendra Patgiri had sustained the injuries on his right hand whereas, in
his evidence he has claimed to have sustained those injuries on his left
hand.
20. It is a settled position of law that an FIR is not an encyclopaedia of
entire case. The FIR need not contain all details. If the informant
erroneously states something in the FIR, this ground alone cannot tilt the
balance of the case in favour of the accused.
21. Regarding the evidentiary value of the Harendra Patgiri, I shall rely
upon a decision of the Supreme Court that was delivered in State of U.P.
v. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324. In this case, the Supreme Court has held as
under-
"27. The evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage being a
stamped witness, thus, his presence cannot be doubted. His statement is
generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the
actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an
Page No.# 6/6
injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at
the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that
he was present during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness
is accorded a special status in law. The witness would not like or want to let his
actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely for the
commission of the offence. Thus, the evidence of the injured witness should be
relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the
basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein. (Vide Jarnail
Singh v. State of Punjab [(2009) 9 SCC 719: (2010) 1 SCC (Cri)
107] , Balraje v. State of Maharashtra [(2010) 6 SCC 673 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 211]
and Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P. [(2010) 10 SCC 259 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri)
1262] )"
22. The evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage
unless there are some compelling circumstances. In the case in hand, I
failed to find compelling circumstances to disbelieve him. His evidence is
clearly corroborated by medical evidence.
23. I am of the considered opinion that the learned court below has
correctly appreciated the prosecution evidence and arrived at a correct
finding. The present appeal is found to be devoid of merit and stands
dismissed accordingly.
Send back the LCR.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
