JUDGEMENT : Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. The instant Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26 th February, 2003 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pakur in Sessions Case No. 180 of 2001 and 32 of 2001, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty for the offences under Sections 307/34 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for the offence under Section 307/34 of the I.P.C., imprisonment for 7 years for the offence under Section 397 of the I.P.C. and imprisonment for 3 years for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently. Factual Matrix:- 2. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 15.12.2000, at about 06:00 P.M., the informant Umakant Sah (PW-9) riding on his newly purchased Rajdoot motorcycle of black colour reached near Trikoni river at Village Trikoni, then he saw in the light of his motorcycle, three persons were standing on the road in his front. In the slow speed of motorcycle, the informant saw Arjun Thakur and Harihar Thakur both the appellants and one unknown person in the light of his motorcycle. It is alleged that Harihar Thakur (Appellant No. 1) stopped the motorcycle of the informant abusing in filthy language and saying that he has ruined his medical practice and ordered to Arjun Thakur (appellant no. 2) to shoot fire at the informant Umakant Sah. It is further alleged that Arjun Thakur (appellant no. 2) fired at the informant by a pistol which hit on the back of the informant and came out from the side of stomach, due to which he fell down from his motorcycle, then Harihar Thakur (appellant no. 1) and the unknown person started inflicting knife blows on the temporal region and back of the informant with the intention to kill him. Thereafter, all the three miscreants fled away taking the motorcycle of the informant. It is further alleged that hearing the alarm raised by the informant and sound of firing, the informant's son Mithlesh Kr. Sah, along with his mother and neighbours approached to the place of occurrence. The informant narrated about the occurrence to them. Thereafter, family members of the informant brought him to St. Luke's Mission Hospital at Hiranpur for treatment. It is further alleged that hearing the alarm raised by the informant and sound of firing, the informant's son Mithlesh Kr. Sah, along with his mother and neighbours approached to the place of occurrence. The informant narrated about the occurrence to them. Thereafter, family members of the informant brought him to St. Luke's Mission Hospital at Hiranpur for treatment. It is further alleged that on earlier occasions also Harihar Thakur (appellant no. 1) had threatened the informant on the point of private medical practice. 3. On the basis of Fardbeyan of informant namely Umakant Sah, recorded by S.I. Ved Prakash Mehta O.C. Hiranpur P.S. at St. Luke's Mission Hospital, General Ward on 15.12.2000 at 21:00 hrs., formal F.I.R. was registered as Littipara P.S. Case No. 39 of 2000 dated 16.12.2000 for the offences under Sections 307/34 and 397 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 4. After completion of the investigation of the case, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants, finding no clue of the unknown person involved in this case. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions where S.T. No. 180 of 2001 and 32 of 2001 was registered, where the accused persons denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 5. Trial commenced, after conclusion of the trial, impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence was passed which has been assailed in this appeal. 6. Heard Mr. Rana Surjit Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants and Mr. Saket Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State as well as Mr. R.C.P. Sah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant. Submissions on behalf of appellants: - 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant assailing the impugned judgement and order has contended that all together 10 witnesses were examined by the prosecution but except PW-9 the informant Umakant Sah, all other witnesses are hearsay witnesses. PW-10 is the Investigating Officer, who has conducted only partial investigation. The main Investigating Officer has not been examined in this case who has conducted substantial part of the investigation. PW-2, PW-7 and PW-8 are brother, son and wife of the informant respectively, while PW-4 and PW-5 are witnesses to the seizure list of blood stained soil. The sole independent witness is PW-1 Balai Marandi, who is also hearsay witness from the informant, but he was not interrogated by the I.O. during the investigation. PW-2, PW-7 and PW-8 are brother, son and wife of the informant respectively, while PW-4 and PW-5 are witnesses to the seizure list of blood stained soil. The sole independent witness is PW-1 Balai Marandi, who is also hearsay witness from the informant, but he was not interrogated by the I.O. during the investigation. It is further submitted that there was professional rivalry between appellant no. 1 Harihar Thakur and the informant, that is the root cause for false implication of the appellants. The sole eye witness informant-cum-injured has categorically admitted that he has sustained as many as 16 injuries on his body which does not find corroboration from his medical report. It is further submitted that the informant has got his first aid treatment at St. Luke's Mission Hospital, Hiranpur, wherein no fire arms injury was found on his body as per injury report proved as Exhibit-2. It is further submitted that the informant has given self-contradictory statement regarding manner of occurrence. He states that when he reached at Trikoni River, he saw the accused persons were standing in front of him and one of the miscreants stopped him and thereafter exchange of abusive words took place. Thereafter, he was shot by fire arm and also assaulted by knife, it is very surprising that all the injuries sustained by informant have been caused to him from behind including the so called fire arms injury, which clearly suggests that while the informant was in slow motion driving of his motorcycle at rocky kaccha road, then some unknown miscreants with intention to rob his motorcycle might have fired from behind and when the informant fell down, he was stabbed and motorcycle was looted. The occurrence is alleged to have happened at 6:00 P.M. in the month of December, when it becomes dark and the claim of informant that he saw accused persons standing front side could not be believed. Similarly, identification of the accused persons in the light of motorcycle is also beyond imagination in the circumstances and manner of occurrence as stated by the informant. There is no whisper in the entire evidence including the deposition of investigation officer as to whether any motorcycle was purchased by the informant and whether it was recovered during investigation or not, that also causes doubt on the prosecution story. Admittedly, there is no seizure list of the motorcycle. There is no whisper in the entire evidence including the deposition of investigation officer as to whether any motorcycle was purchased by the informant and whether it was recovered during investigation or not, that also causes doubt on the prosecution story. Admittedly, there is no seizure list of the motorcycle. The informant Umakant Sah, (PW-9), in his cross-examination has also categorically admitted at para-10 of his deposition that place of occurrence was river side and road was also full of pebbles when he was riding up side in the river, then he was shot by fire arm, then he fell down and his motorcycle also got stopped with loud noise/sound and when he fell down, he was assaulted by knife and his motorcycle was also stolen by the accused persons. The sole injured-cum-eyewitness (PW-9) has also stated in his cross examination that he has shown all the 16 injuries to the doctor at St. Luke's Mission Hospital, Hiranpur. Thereafter, he was referred from Hiranpur hospital to S.S.K.M. PG Hospital, Kolkata, where he has shown only injuries on stomach and no other parts of the body. It is further submitted that the entire medical report of the injured conducted by S.S.K.M. PG Hospital, Kolkata has neither been brought on record nor has any doctor been examined, which has caused great prejudice to the appellants in their defence. It is further submitted that non-examination of main I.O. of this case, who has submitted charge-sheet, is also prejudiced to the defence. Lastly, it is submitted that it is out and out a case of false implication by the informant after considerable thought and concoction due to professional rivalry with the accused persons, whose medical practices were better than the informant. The occurrence is of simple robbery against the informant in which he has no occasion to identify any of the miscreants and falsely implicated the appellants in this case. The learned Trial Court has committed serious error of law in appreciating the evidence of sole injured-cum-informant and arrived at wrong conclusion which is liable to be set aside and appellants be acquitted from the charges levelled against them. Accordingly, this appeal may be allowed. Submissions on behalf of State:- 8. The learned Trial Court has committed serious error of law in appreciating the evidence of sole injured-cum-informant and arrived at wrong conclusion which is liable to be set aside and appellants be acquitted from the charges levelled against them. Accordingly, this appeal may be allowed. Submissions on behalf of State:- 8. Per contra; learned A.P.P. for the State defending the impugned judgment and order of conviction of the appellants has submitted that the learned Trial Court has very wisely and aptly considered overall aspects of the case. The sole informant-cum-injured and his family members, who immediately arrived at the place of occurrence from a distance of 300 yards and disclosure of the incident by the informant to them cannot be disbelieved. The informant as sole eye witness and sufferer of the crime has consistently proved his case which finds corroboration from medical injury report and treatment report of the informant. Mere none recovery of motorcycle or any other incriminating article cannot be treated fatal to the prosecution. There is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution story. The learned Trial Court has committed no error of law in convicting the appellants for the offences charged against them. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants calling for any interference in this appeal, which is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed. 9. We have gone through the records of case along with impugned judgment in the light of contentions raised on behalf of respective parties. 10. On the basis of rival points or arguments of the learned counsels, the only question for determination in this appeal emerges that “as to whether the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants suffers from any serious error of law calling for any interference in this appeal or not?” Analysis, discussions and reasons: - 11. Before adverting to adjudicating the above point, we have to take brief resume of the evidence of the witnesses available on record. 12. It appears that altogether 10 witnesses were examined in this case by the prosecution:- P.W.-1 Balai Marandi P.W.-2 Rajendra Prasad Sah P.W.-3 Dr. Barnawas Murmu P.W.-4 Budhram Besra P.W.-5 Charan Marandi P.W.-6 Yogendra Thakur P.W.-7 Kavita Devi P.W.-8 Mithilesh Kr. Sah P.W.-9 Umakant Sah (Informant) P.W.-10 Madhu Kachhap 13. 12. It appears that altogether 10 witnesses were examined in this case by the prosecution:- P.W.-1 Balai Marandi P.W.-2 Rajendra Prasad Sah P.W.-3 Dr. Barnawas Murmu P.W.-4 Budhram Besra P.W.-5 Charan Marandi P.W.-6 Yogendra Thakur P.W.-7 Kavita Devi P.W.-8 Mithilesh Kr. Sah P.W.-9 Umakant Sah (Informant) P.W.-10 Madhu Kachhap 13. Apart from the oral testimony of above witnesses, following documentary evidence has been adduced by the prosecution:- i) Exhibit-1: Signature of PW-2 Rajendra Prasad Sah on the Fardbeyan ii) Exhibit-2: Injury Report (by PW-3). iii) Exhibit-3: Formal F.I.R. iv) Exhibit-4: Seizure List. v) Exhibit-X: Carbon copy of Bed Head Ticket issued by S.S.K.M. PG Hospital, Kolkata. 14. The most important witness informant-cum-sole eyewitness and injured in this case namely Umakant Sah (PW-9) was examined on 02.12.2002. According to his evidence, on 15 th December, 2000 at about 6:00 P.M., he proceeded from Manjhladih Hat to his own house on black colour Rajdoot motorcycle and reached near Trikoni river. He saw in the light of his motorcycle that across the river at the corner of upside road Harihar Thakur and Arjun Thakur were standing alongwith one unknown person. When this witness reached near to them, then all the three persons stopped his motorcycle. Harihar Thakur started abusing and Arjun Thakur was ordered to shot fire upon him. This witness attempted to flee away, in the meantime, Arjun Thakur fired upon him which hit him on the back side and bullet got exited from his stomach and he fell down. His intestine was protruded, the motorcycle fell down towards right side and this witness fell down towards left side. Thereafter all the three accused persons started assaulting him by knife at about 16 places of the body. He sustained knife injuries on arms, chest, back, pinna, head, left hand and right armpit and corner of left eye. This witness started raising alarm calling his son Mitthu @ Mithilesh Kr. Sah, then his son Mithilesh Kr. Sah @ Mithu alongwith wife of this witness came to the place of occurrence. The accused persons fled away with the motorcycle of this witness. This witness started raising alarm calling his son Mitthu @ Mithilesh Kr. Sah, then his son Mithilesh Kr. Sah @ Mithu alongwith wife of this witness came to the place of occurrence. The accused persons fled away with the motorcycle of this witness. He has further stated that in the way of arrival of his son Harihar Thakur told that ^^ikik dgrs jguk] rqEgkjk ikik bl nqfu;k ls pyk x;k gSa**A He has further stated that in the meantime, his brother Rajendra Prasad Sah (PW-2) also arrived alongwith 2 to 4 other persons, then he narrated the incident to them. Rajendra Prasad Sah (PW-2) tightened a Gamchha in the stomach of this witness and also managed a vehicle and he was brought to Hiranpur Mission Hospital, where his treatment was started but due to severe injuries, the doctors advised to take him to higher centre for better treatment. His fardbeyan was recorded by Officer In- charge, upon which he put his left thumb impression due to engagement of right hand for giving drip. Thereafter, his brother Rajendra Prasad Sah (PW-2) taking the document of reference managed a vehicle and brought him to Kolkata, where he was admitted in S.S.K.M. PG hospital, Kolkata, where he has undergone treatment for about one month. He has also filed carbon copy of bed head ticket issued by S.S.K.M. PG hospital, Kolkata. This witness has identified the accused Harihar Thakur and Arjun Thakur in dock. In his cross-examination, he admits that after recording of his fardbeyan, he went to Kolkata for treatment and returned after one month. Thereafter his statement was not recorded by police. He could not say that his fardbeyan contains signature of conducting doctor of Hiranpur Mission hospital. He further admits that for the first time he has stated that he raised alarm, then his son Mithilesh Kr. Sah @ Mithu came at the time of occurrence and he has also not stated before police that ^^ikik dgrs jguk] rqEgkjk ikik bl nqfu;k ls pyk x;k gSa**A He further admits that the accused persons fled away towards the side from which he was coming and his son and wife arrived to the place of occurrence from opposite direction. He also admits that Harihar Thakur and Arjun Thakur were already acquainted with him. He further admits that he is not a doctor by profession but sells medicine . He also admits that Harihar Thakur and Arjun Thakur were already acquainted with him. He further admits that he is not a doctor by profession but sells medicine . Harihar Thakur is by profession a doctor but he has no enmity with him . He further admits that his motorcycle was stopped by accused persons by putting hand, when it was at the speed of 10 km/h, motorcycle fell down just after receiving bullet injury. At that time, he had crossed the river. He also admits that in the river, there is road full of stones and no pitch road has been constructed. He received firearm injury while proceeding towards upward on the road where he fell down and his motorcycle switched off making loud noise. He received knife injuries after falling down from motorcycle. He further admits that he has shown all 16 injuries sustained by him to the doctor at Hiranpur Mission hospital. He has denied the suggestions of defence that except injury on stomach, he got no other injuries. He has falsely implicated the accused persons only on account of jealousy, who are by profession doctor and having very good practice. He has also denied that this witness has not identified any of the accused persons who have robbed his motorcycle and due to previous enmity and jealousy; he has falsely implicated the accused persons. PW-1 Balai Marandi - When this witness reached at the place of occurrence, other witnesses namely Mithilesh Kumar Sah, Rajendra Prasad Sah and wife of Umakant Sah, Joginder Thakur and other several persons also arrived. Umakant Sah was brought to Littipara for his treatment at Hiranpur Government Mission Hospital. He further states that Umakant Sah was practicing as doctor and Harihar Thakur was also in the profession of doctor but there were rivalry between them due to higher income of the informant. In his cross-examination, he admits that Arjun Thakur is also his friend and acquainted to him prior to occurrence. He also admits that in the way from Manjhiladih Hat to Trikoni River, several motorcycles used to pass. When he reached at Trikoni River, the headlight of motorcycle was lighting upon which Arjun Thakur and his two associates were riding but when they reached near him, headlight was switched off and motorcycle passed beside this witness at a marginal speed. He also admits that in the way from Manjhiladih Hat to Trikoni River, several motorcycles used to pass. When he reached at Trikoni River, the headlight of motorcycle was lighting upon which Arjun Thakur and his two associates were riding but when they reached near him, headlight was switched off and motorcycle passed beside this witness at a marginal speed. Umakant Sah was lying on earth under pool of blood at a distance of 10 hands from the river. He has also reaffirmed in the Court question that after crossing the river at a distance of 10 hands, Umakant Sah was lying, who was not unconscious at that time. The informant Umakant Sah was brought to Littipara by motorcycle and from there he was brought to Hiranpur Mission Hospital which is situated at a distance of 13 km from Littipara. He also states that nearly Littipara Chowk police station is situated and from Hiranpur Chowk within radius of 50 yards, Hiranpur police station is also situated. He further admits in clear terms that his statement was not recorded by police at any point of time during the investigation and he is giving his evidence before the Court for the first time after the occurrence. This witness has denied the suggestion of defense that he has given false evidence as regards place of occurrence and seeing the accused persons fleeing by a motorcycle. He also admits that he is friend of Rajendra Prasad Sah who is brother of Umakant Sah. Hence, he has given evidence as tutored by Rajendra Prasad Sah. PW-2 Rajendra Prasad Sah is the brother of informant. According to his evidence on the date of occurrence about 6:00 p.m. while he was sitting in front of his house, he heard sound of firing and alarm raised by his brother Umakant Sah. He rushed towards Trikoni river and saw his brother was lying under pool of blood sustaining injuries on his pinna (near ear), back, chest and hand, intestine was also protruded from the stomach. He tied the stomach of the injured by his gamchha. He has further deposed that his brother Umakant Sah told that he was returning from Manjhiladih hat on his motorcycle and arrived at Trikoni river then saw three persons and identified Arjun Thakur, Harihar Thakur and one person was not known to him. He tied the stomach of the injured by his gamchha. He has further deposed that his brother Umakant Sah told that he was returning from Manjhiladih hat on his motorcycle and arrived at Trikoni river then saw three persons and identified Arjun Thakur, Harihar Thakur and one person was not known to him. Harihar Thakur stopped his motorcycle and ordered Arjun Thakur to shoot him. Then Arjun Thakur shot fire from the back side and the bullet exited from the stomach. Thereafter, he was assaulted by knife. He also saw the accused while fleeing with the motorcycle of his brother. He has further deposed that he brought his brother at Luke's Hospital, Hiranpur by motorcycle and on advice of doctor, he went to Hiranpur Police Station. The police officer arrived to hospital and recorded statement of his brother. Thereafter his brother was referred to higher center for better treatment and he went along with injured brother to S.S.K.M. PG Hospital, Kolkata. He has also proved his signature over the fardbeyan of the informant marked at exhibit-1. In his cross-examination, this witness admits that on the advice of doctor, he went to Hiranpur Police Station and met with officer–in-charge. He disclosed the entire occurrence before the officer-in-charge and his statement was recorded and his signature was obtained at the police station. Thereafter police officer along with him came to hospital. This witness further admits that in the Hiranpur Hospital his brother was treated by Dr. Barnawas Murmu about two hours. Thereafter he was referred for higher center. He also admits that no police officer accompanied while and the injured was brought to Kolkata. He further admits that from the place of occurrence, his house is situated at the distance of ½ kilometer and prior to his arrival at the place of occurrence, his nephew Mithilesh Kumar Sah @ Mithu, Sister-in-law Kavita Devi and other neighbors were present. He fairly admits that in his statement before police he has not stated that he has seen the accused persons while fleeing by motorcycle. He also admits the professional rivalry between his brother Umakant Sah and Harihar Thakur. He fairly admits that in his statement before police he has not stated that he has seen the accused persons while fleeing by motorcycle. He also admits the professional rivalry between his brother Umakant Sah and Harihar Thakur. He has denied the suggestion of defense that his brother was not in condition to speak at the time of occurrence and due to previous enmity between his brother and accused persons, he has concocted a false story to ruin the medical practice of the accused persons. PW-3 Dr. Barnawas Murmu , Medical officer of St. Luke's Mission Hospital, Hiranpur has examined the injured Umakant Sah on 15.12.2000 at 8:00 p.m. and found following injuries on his person: i) On back 1” to 1.1/2” long on upper part of the back. ii) Two holes on lower part of back about 1” long. iii) Front of abdomen- there was part of loop of intestine protruding out from abdominal wound. iv) On head- cut injury behind the right ear about 3” to 4” long, ¼” wide and deep down to the bone. 1. Nature of weapon for injury no. i) and ii)- A sharp weapon for injury no. i) and a pointed weapon for injury no. ii). Sharp weapon for injury no. iii) and iv). Nature of injures-grievous. He has further opined that the sharp weapon may be dagger which might have caused sharp injuries. He has proved the injury report as Exhibit-2. This witness also opines that two holes might have caused by the penetration of bullets through entry and exit holes of injury no. ii) and iii). PW-4 Budhram Besra has reached at the place of occurrence hearing halla. He saw Umakant Sah was lying on earth in injured condition and disclosed that Arjun Thakur had shot fire on him and Harihar Thakur has assaulted by knife and one unknown person was also with them. He saw injuries on the body of Umakant Sah on left hand, chest, head, and stomach. Blood stained soil was seized by police in his presence and another witness Charan Marandi and he put his thumb impression over seizure list. In his cross examination, he admits that prior to him, injured Umakant Sah has narrated the incident to several persons who have arrived before him. PW-5 Charan Marandi is witness of seizure list of blood stained soil. In his cross examination, he admits that prior to him, injured Umakant Sah has narrated the incident to several persons who have arrived before him. PW-5 Charan Marandi is witness of seizure list of blood stained soil. PW-6 Yogendra Thakur has also claimed to have gone at the place of occurrence hearing the sound of firing. The informant Umakant Sah disclosed that Arjun Thakur and Harihar Thakur have assaulted by pistol and knife. He does not know about the reason of the occurrence. PW-7 Kavita Devi is the wife of informant. She has also claimed that at about 6:00 p.m. she heard the sound of firing and alarm raised by her husband, then she, along with her son Mithilesh Kumar Sah @ Mitthu, rushed to the Trikoni river and saw her husband was lying under pool of blood sustaining injuries on his back, chest, and stomach. Her brother-in- law, Rajendra Prasad Sah, arrived there and tied the stomach of her husband by gamchha. Her husband also disclosed that Harihar Thakur had shot fire upon him, thereafter Arjun Thakur and Harihar Thakur both of them assaulted by knife and also taken away his Rajdoot motorcycle. Her husband was brought to Hiranpur Mission Hospital by her son Mithilesh Kumar Sah @ Mitthu and brother-in-law Rajendra Prasad Sah. In her cross examination, she admits that her house from the place of occurrence is situated at a distance of 200 to 300 hands. She also saw the accused persons fleeing away with the motorcycle of her husband and saying to her son that ^^rqEgkjk ikik bl nqfu;k ls pyk x;k gSa**A She further states that when accused persons fled away by motorcycle, then she reached near her husband who was seriously injured but conscious. PW-8 Mithilesh Kumar Sah also reached along with his mother hearing screams of his father and sound of firing. His father was lying injured near the river sustaining injuries on his back, chest, stomach, and pinna (near ear), intestine was also protruded. His uncle Rajendra Prasad Sah also immediately arrived at the place of occurrence and tied his gamchha on the stomach injury of his father. Thereafter his father was brought to Hiranpur Mission Hospital. His father told that Harihar Thakur and Arjun Thakur have assaulted by knife and Arjun Thakur shot fire to him. His father was injured but not unconscious. His uncle Rajendra Prasad Sah also immediately arrived at the place of occurrence and tied his gamchha on the stomach injury of his father. Thereafter his father was brought to Hiranpur Mission Hospital. His father told that Harihar Thakur and Arjun Thakur have assaulted by knife and Arjun Thakur shot fire to him. His father was injured but not unconscious. In his cross examination, he admits that his uncle Rajendra Prasad Sah informed about the occurrence at Hiranpur Police Station. He further admits that village Trikoni is under jurisdiction of Littipara Police Station and they have gone to Hiranpur Mission Hospital passing through Littipara, but no information was given to Littipara Police Station. He has denied the suggestion of defense that his father was not conscious and he was not able to disclose the name of any accused persons and he has given false information against the accused persons. PW-10 Madhu Kachhap is the investigating officer of this case. According to his evidence on 15/12/2000, he received confidential information and recorded station diary entry and proceeded to Hiranpur Mission hospital. When he reached at Hiranpur Mission Hospital, the fardbeyan of Umakant Sah (injured) was already recorded by officer-in- charge of Hiranpur Police Station and requisition for injury report was also issued. He recorded the restatement of injured/informant and also other witnesses namely Rajendra Prasad Sah and Mithilesh Kumar Sah and Balai Marandi. Thereafter he returned to Littipara Police Station and formal F.I.R. was registered which is marked as exhibit-3. He has inspected the place of occurrence on identification by wife of the injured Kavita Devi. The place of occurrence is situated at Kacha Road from Gamharia to Trikoni near Trikoni river about 25 feet east which is a lonely place. He prepared seizure list of blood stained soil from the place of occurrence in presence of witnesses Charan Marandi and Budhram Desra, marked as exhibit-4. Thereafter, he was transferred and further charge of investigation was handed over to S.I. Ajay Kumar Tiwari. He has denied the suggestion of defense that without registration of F.I.R., he started investigation of the case by recording statement of Rajendra Prasad Sah, Mithilesh Kumar Sah and Balai Marandi. He has not seized the gamchha which was tied in the stomach of injured by his brother. He has denied the suggestion of defense that without registration of F.I.R., he started investigation of the case by recording statement of Rajendra Prasad Sah, Mithilesh Kumar Sah and Balai Marandi. He has not seized the gamchha which was tied in the stomach of injured by his brother. He has also denied any re-statement of the informant recorded by him on the same date and his investigation is defective. 15. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defense. The case of defense is denial from occurrence and false implication due to professional rivalry. 16. We have given thoughtful consideration to the oral and documentary evidence adduced in this case and find that the sole injured-cum-informant was attacked on the fateful date of occurrence at about 6 p.m. He had sustained injuries dangerous to life. Therefore, it was prime obligation of the near and dear ones to get a proper treatment. Therefore, without wasting any time, the injured was brought to St. Luke's Mission Hospital, Hiranpur and at about 21:00 hours on the same day, being a medico legal case, the nearest police station, Hiranpur was informed and the officer-in- charge S.I. Ved Prakash Mehta arrived at the St. Luke's Mission Hospital and recorded farbeyan of the injured Umakant Sah. In his farbeyan, the sole injured-cum-informant has categorically stated the events and specific role played by the present appellants in assaulting him by knife and using fire arm also. The informant was examined during trial as PW-9 wherein also he has consistently corroborated his earlier statement made before the police. The evidence of informant-cum-sole injured has been tested through lengthy cross-examination, but nothing has been appeared to caste any doubt in his testimony or showing any animus to falsely implicate the appellants sparing the real culprits. Although some contradictions appearing in his evidence has been pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants regarding professional rivalry as initially stated to be motive for the occurrence has been denied by the informant when suggested by defence. The non-recovery of motorcycle and production of seized materials during trial and other contradictions like number of injuries sustained by the informant doesn't appear to be vital contradictions going to the root of prosecution case. 17. We further find that the testimony of sole injured finds corroboration from the evidence of PW-3 Dr. Barnawas Murmu, Medical Officer of St. The non-recovery of motorcycle and production of seized materials during trial and other contradictions like number of injuries sustained by the informant doesn't appear to be vital contradictions going to the root of prosecution case. 17. We further find that the testimony of sole injured finds corroboration from the evidence of PW-3 Dr. Barnawas Murmu, Medical Officer of St. Luke's Mission Hospital Hiranpur, who examined the injured on 15.12.2000 at about 8:00 p.m., has found grievous injuries on the back, front abdomen, head caused by sharp cut weapon. He also found that part of loop of intestine protruded out from abdominal wound. The injuries were opined to be grievous in nature caused by sharp cut weapon, which also corroborates the testimony of PW-9. The learned counsel for the appellants has led much emphasis that the bullet injury was not found by PW-3 Dr. Barnawas Murmu but as against it, the evidence of PW-3 Dr. Barnawas Murmu goes to show that in his opinion injury no. ii) two holes on lower part of back and injury no. iii) protruding out intestine front abdominal wound might have been caused by penetration of bullet through the entry and exit hole of injury nos. ii) and iii). In this connection, this is vehemently pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants that the whole medical treatment report from S.S.K.M. PG Hospital, Kolkata has not been produced by prosecution and only carbon copy of bed head ticket was produced by the informant PW-9 which was marked as Exhibit- „X' for identification, but no original document was produced in this case, which also cast doubt on the prosecution case. Such type of technical defects cannot be entertained to destroy the testimony of injured-cum-eye-witness who is sufferer of the crime and has undergone agony of medical treatment for a long time. It cannot be considered to brand him as tainted witness. Therefore, the lacuna in non-production of complete medical treatment documents is not sufficient to displace the prosecution case. The other witnesses of facts are admittedly hearsay witnesses, but they have also approached at the place of occurrence immediately and the injured narrated the incident to them in clear terms. Some of the witnesses immediately brought the injured to hospital for treatment. Therefore, their testimony is relevant under Section 6 of the Evidence Act being part of the transaction called as 'res gestae'. Some of the witnesses immediately brought the injured to hospital for treatment. Therefore, their testimony is relevant under Section 6 of the Evidence Act being part of the transaction called as 'res gestae'. The probative value of injured witness stands on higher pedestal than other eye witnesses. If such witness found reliable and his testimony doesn't suffer from any embellishment, material contradictions, or inherently improbable in the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be acted upon as sole basis for conviction. 18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Catena of judgments has laid down that evidence of an injured witness needs to be accepted unless there is convincing evidence to discredit it. In the case of Abdul Sayeed vs. State of M.P. , reported in (2010) 10 SCC 259 , it was held that “the question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed by this Court. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. “Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness.” In the case of State of U.P. vs. Kishan Chand & Ors . as reported in (2004) 7 SCC 629 , it was held that “the testimony of an injured witness has its own relevance and efficacy. The fact that the witness sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence lends support to their testimony that the witnesses were present during the occurrence. The injured witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examination, but nothing could be elicited to discredit their testimony. In the case of State of U.P. vs. Naresh , as reported in (2011) 4 SCC 324 , it was held by Hon'ble Apex Court that “the evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage being a stamped witness. Thus, his presence can't 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. Thus, his presence can't 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 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 offense.” 19. In the case in hand, we have considered the testimony of witnesses in threadbare manner in light of certain contradictions, infirmities, exaggerations in the evidence of other eye witnesses coupled with irregularities and casual manner of investigation, but don't find any compelling reasons to disbelieve the prosecution case, particularly the testimony of sole eye-witness-cum-injured to discard the same. Moreover, the testimony of the sole injured witness herein substantially finds corroboration from the evidence of medical injury report promptly conducted by PW-3 Dr. Barnawas Murmu. 20. In view of the above discussions and reason, we don't find any error of law in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants for the offenses charged against them. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order and no merits in this appeal. Therefore, this appeal stands dismissed . Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. 21. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are hereby cancelled and they are directed to appear before the concerned trial court within two months from the date of this judgment to sustain the remaining part of sentence awarded to them. The imprisonment already undergone by the appellants shall be set off from the substantive period of sentence. 22. If the appellants fail to appear before the concerned trial court within the aforesaid period, all coercive steps shall be taken by the learned trial court for their arrest and detention in custody to serve the remaining part of sentence awarded to them. 23. Let the copy of this judgment along with trial court records be sent back to the concerned trial court for information and needful.