Page No.# 1/18 GAHC040016482025 2026:GAU-AP:249 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./33/2025 Madhav Sonowal Son of Mr Durgeswar Sonowal, Podumoni Village, PO and PS Mahadevpur, Lohit District, Arunachal Pradesh 791003 VERSUS The State of AP and Anr through the PP of AP 2:Diganta Mech Age: 0 Occupation : Son of Nipen mech Village Podumoni PO and PS Mahadevpur Lohit District Arunachal Pradesh. 791003 Advocate for the Petitioner : S K Deori, Lishi Taj,Somila,T Boo Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Amicus Curiae,Gimi Tarak Page No.# 2/18 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA Date on which judgment was reserved : 12.03.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 13.03.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the : Yes operative part of the judgment? Whether the full judgment has been : NA pronounced? JUDGMENT AND ORDER(CAV) Heard Mr. S. K. Deori, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. Also heard Ms. T. Jini, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. G. Tarak, learned Amicus Curiae for the Respondent No. 2 2. The instant revision petition under Sections 438 and 442 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed assailing the Judgment and Order dated 05.06.2025 and Sentence Order dated 01.07.2025 passed by the Learned District & Sessions Judge, Tezu, in Criminal Appeal No. 1 (NMS)/2022, whereby the appeal filed against the Judgment and Order dated 17.12.2022, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Namsai, has been dismissed and affirmed the conviction of the accused/petitioner under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code sentencing him to undergo a simple imprisonment of two years (2) with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, 6 months’ imprisonment. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that an FIR was lodged before Page No.# 3/18 Mahadevpur Police Station on 10.05.2012 at 1750 hours by Sri Diganta Mech (the victim), alleging that on the same evening at about 1720 hours, the accused, Sri Madhav Sonowal, had attacked him with a dao without any reason, resulting in severe head injuries to the informant. Consequently, the FIR was registered on 10.05.2012 for an offence under Section 326 IPC against the accused/petitioner. 4. On completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed and the case was proceeded against the accused petitioner, Mr. Madhav Sonowal, after framing of charge for offence under Section 326 IPC on 24.04.2017. 5. The prosecution examined five (5) witnesses during the trial of the case. They are namely, Sri Nipen Mech (PW-1), Sri Diganta Mech (PW-2), Sri Sukhen Gogoi (PW-3), Sri C. L. Manchey, Medical Officer (PW-4) and Sri Lod Tari, I.O. of the case (PW-5). The defence did not examine any witness. 6. PW-1, Shri Nipen Mech, the father of the victim was examined on 19.06.2017. While identifying the accused as being from the same village, he deposed that sometime in the year 2012, when his son, Diganta Mech, was returning home on his motorcycle after dropping his uncle, Sri Profullo Mech, the accused/petitioner inflicted a cut on his son’s forehead without any reason. At that time, he was at Peyong, Namsai and on receiving the information, he rushed to his residence at Podumoni. Thereafter, along with his elder son, Sri Rintu Mech, he went to the place of occurrence and took his son (the victim) to Mahadevpur CHC, from where he was referred to Dibrugarh for further treatment. Due to the cut on his forehead caused by a sharp dao wielded by the accused/petitioner, his son remained unconscious for four to five days in the ICU of a private hospital named Aditya at Dibrugarh. On returning to his village, he Page No.# 4/18 lodged the FIR; however, the copy of the FIR shown to him before the Trial Court was not the one he had originally lodged. He also deposed that he had spent around Rs. 50,000/- towards the medical treatment of his son, while the accused/petitioner contributed only Rs. 15,000/-. The accused neither approached them to console them nor contributed any further towards medical expenses. While exhibiting and proving the seizure memo marked as P/EXT-1, he stated that the actual weapon of offence which was seized was not shown to him in the Trial Court. During cross-examination, he admitted that he had not personally witnessed the incident and deposed based on what he had heard from the villagers. He further stated that the weapon of offence had been sent to his residence by the son-in-law of the accused, who had allegedly taken it from the accused at the time of the incident. He denied having falsely implicated the accused. On re-examination on 18.12.2017, he identified the weapon of offence/dao marked as M/EXT-1 and deposed that it was similar to the one seized by the Investigating Officer in the case. However, he noted that the handle was not exactly the same, as the seized weapon had its handle covered with a bicycle tube. 7. PW-2, Sri Diganta Mech, the informant/victim, was examined on 19.06.2012 and while deposing, he identified the accused/petitioner as a person from his village. He stated that when he was returning home on his motorcycle after dropping his uncle, Sri Profullo Mech, the accused inflicted a cut on his forehead with a dao without any reason. Unaware of the gravity of the injury, he continued to ride home but upon reaching home and seeing blood oozing from his head, he, along with his elder brother, Sri Rintu Mech, and mother, went to Mahadevpur Police Station and subsequently to Mahadevpur CHC. After receiving primary treatment and stitches, they returned home, but he later lost Page No.# 5/18 consciousness and regained it only at Dibrugarh Hospital. He identified his signature on the FIR, which is exhibited as P/Ext-2, but stated that he did not specifically remember lodging a formal FIR and that he was examined by the police. In cross-examination, PW-2 denied knowing the contents of FIR (P/Ext- 2) dated 10.05.2012 in his name. He denied that he sustained the injury due to his own fault, for instance by bending his bike after seeing the accused approaching with a garden dao. He also denied the suggestion that he had not lodged the FIR or was unwilling to pursue the matter and stated that he did not wish to pursue the matter further due to his relationship with the accused, who is his brother-in-law. On re-examination on 06.08.2018, PW-2 identified the dao marked as M/Ext-1 and deposed that he was injured on his right forehead with the same dao by the accused. However, during cross-examination, he stated that he was not very certain whether it was indeed the same dao (M/Ext-1) with which he sustained the injury. 8. PW-3, Sri Sukhen Gogoi, was examined on 21.08.2017. He identified the accused and deposed that some years back, in the evening after attending a marriage function, while he was proceeding towards his village, Mahadevpur, he met Sri Okhil Mech. While both were talking, he saw the victim, Sri Diganta Mech, riding a motorcycle at high speed when, suddenly, the accused struck the victim on the head with a local dao, causing a severe injury. He stated that blood was oozing from the victim’s head. Thereafter, the accused left the spot, and the victim came towards them, however, seeing the victim injured and bleeding, he became nervous and left the place to avoid any complications. He further deposed that a few days after the incident, he was summoned to Mahadevpur Police Station, where he identified the weapon of offence/dao from among 5–6 daos shown to him by the police. He stated that he would be able to Page No.# 6/18 identify it if shown to him. He exhibited the seizure list marked as P/Ext-1. In cross-examination, PW-3 stated that he had witnessed the incident from a distance of about 100 meters. The victim was riding the motorcycle at high speed from the opposite direction. He denied being certain whether the injury was caused by the blunt side of the dao used by the accused or that he had taken the dao from the accused to the father of the victim. He deposed that he saw the victim himself pick up the weapon of offence from his lap but did not know where it was taken, as he had walked away from the spot. He denied that the victim had hit the accused with his bike, causing him to go straight home without stopping. He also denied that he had not spoken to Sri Okhil Mech upon seeing the victim riding his bike. On re-examination on 18.12.2017, PW-3 identified the dao (M/Ext-1) and deposed that it was similar to the dao seized by the Investigating Officer, although the handle was not the same, as the actual seized dao had its handle covered with a bicycle tube. 9. PW-4, Sri C. L. Manchey, the Medical Officer, after proving the MLC report marked as P/Ext-3, deposed that on 10.05.2012 at around 1750 hours, he examined Shri Diganta Mech, who was brought to CHC Mahadevpur by the Mahadevpur Police. During his examination, he found a sharp cut injury on the upper right side of the scalp over the ear. He stated that the length of the cut was about 10–12 inches, while the width was not clear to him, though there was a visible gap. He observed continuous bleeding from the injured area and the presence of a blood clot. He opined that the injury sustained by the victim was grievous in nature and caused by a sharp weapon. In cross-examination, he admitted that he had not mentioned in the report that the injured person was brought to him by the police nor had he recorded details about how he administered treatment, although he had conducted all necessary examinations Page No.# 7/18 and provided treatment, including first aid, stitching and other necessary medications. 10. PW-5, Sri Lod Tari, the Investigating Officer deposed that on receipt of the FIR on 10.05.2012 at around 17:50 hours from Sri Diganta Mech, stating that on the same day at about 1730 hours, one Sri Madhav Sonowal had attacked him with a sharp weapon causing injuries, the case was formally registered as Mahadevpur P.S. Case No. 05/2012 under Section 326 IPC. He deposed that after registration, he forwarded the victim/informant to CHC Mahadevpur for necessary medical treatment. Subsequently, he visited the place of occurrence but was unable to arrest the accused or seize the weapon of offence, as the accused had already fled. He stated that he examined the lone witness, Sri Sukhen Gogoi and recorded his statement. Later, on 12.05.2012, he seized the weapon of offence, a local dao, on production by Shri Sukhen Gogoi and Shri Nipen Mech, after it was found from a nearby place of occurrence. He further deposed that the accused could not be arrested during the investigation for 4–5 months, however, he was able to gather sufficient and reliable materials against the accused from the direct witness, medical injury report, seized weapon and other incriminating circumstantial evidence and accordingly drew charges against Sri Madhav Sonowal under Section 326 IPC. The IO exhibited the seizure memo, injury report and charges as P/Ext-1, P/Ext-3 and P/Ext-4 respectively. PW-5 also identified and exhibited the weapon of offence, i.e., the dao seized by him, as M/Ext-1. In cross-examination, PW-5 denied having recorded the statement of the victim or having prepared the draft sketch map of the place of occurrence. He deposed that he recorded the statements of the father of the victim and PW-3, who had accompanied him when both appeared at the police station along with the weapon of offence. He admitted that the Page No.# 8/18 police station case number written on the seized weapon was corrected by him due to a mistake made by his subordinate officer. 11. On his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., Shri Madhav Sonowal, the accused, denied having committed any wrongdoing or offence against any person as alleged in the case. He stated that in April 2012, although he heard the sound of a motorcycle while having a drink at his residence in Podumani village, he did not know whose motorcycle it was nor did he know what had happened to Shri Diganta Mech. He further stated that he was unaware of the reasons why the victim, Shri Sukhen Gogoi and other witnesses had allegedly made false statements against him. 12. After hearing the matter finally, the learned Trial Court, i.e., the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-cum-Civil Judge, Junior Division, Namsai, Arunachal Pradesh, vide its judgment dated 17.12.2020 and the sentence order dated 21.12.2020, held the accused/petitioner, Sri Madhav Sonowal, guilty of an offence under Section 326 IPC. He was convicted for the said offence and sentenced to two (2) years of simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), and in default of payment of the fine, to undergo an additional six (6) months of imprisonment. 13. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment dated 17.12.2020 and the sentence dated 21.12.2020, the petitioner/accused filed an appeal before the Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Tezu, Arunachal Pradesh, which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 01 (NMS)/2022. The appeal was finally heard on 05.06.2025 and an order on the sentence was passed on 01.07.2025, whereby the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court, without making any Page No.# 9/18 interference. 14. Being so placed, the petitioner has filed this instant Review Petition before this court assailing the aforesaid judgment dated 05.06.2025 and sentence dated 01.07.2025 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Tezu. 15. Mr. S. K. Deori, learned counsel for the accused/petitioner, submits that the conviction order passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge is entirely based on suspicion, without any material basis. He contends that, in the absence of sufficient material to establish a case for conviction under Section 326 IPC, the learned District and Sessions Judge, Tezu, convicted the petitioner without properly appreciating the materials brought on record. He further submits that the prosecution has failed to produce any material to substantiate the admission of the victim in a private hospital at Dibrugarh. Consequently, the deposition of PW-1, the father of the victim, cannot be relied upon to the effect that the cut injury allegedly inflicted by the accused/petitioner on the victim’s head was of a grievous nature and endangered his life. The learned counsel also points out that although the weapon of offence was allegedly seized by the Investigating Officer, doubts remain regarding whether the same weapon was actually used by the petitioner in the alleged offence, and there is confusion about the identity of the said weapon. He further submits that the medical report submitted by PW-4 is not credible, as PW-4 had released the victim after providing first aid and stitches at Mahadevpur CHC, without any advice or referral for further treatment. He contends that if the injury were truly grievous, the victim would not have been sent home but would have been referred to a hospital capable of providing adequate treatment. Finally, he submits that a person sustaining a grievous head injury of 11–12 inches in length would hardly Page No.# 10/18 be able to move around as described and that the sole testimony of PW-3 cannot be relied upon due to various discrepancies in his statement. 16. Mr. Deori, learned counsel further submits that, in view of the aforesaid improbabilities and in light of the absence of any material to suggest the actual occurrence of an injury of such grievous nature, the petitioner should not have been convicted under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. Relying on the case of Jiban Das vs. State of Assam reported in (2005) 1 GLR 144, he contends that grievous hurt has been defined under Section 320 IPC and none of the eight categories of injuries enumerated therein are present in the instant case. He specifically refers to Clause Eighthly of Section 320, which provides for an injury or hurt that either endangers life or causes the sufferer to be during a period of twenty (20) days in severe bodily pain or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits. However, he submits that, in the instant case, there is no material to indicate that the injury alleged to have been inflicted on the victim either endangered his life or caused him to suffer severe bodily pain for a period of twenty (20) days. 17. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the accused/petitioner, Mr. S. K. Deori, submits that the prosecution has failed to make out a case for conviction under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. He further contends that, at best, the instant case may amount to an offence of simple hurt under Section 319 IPC and therefore, the conviction of the petitioner should be modified to one under Section 323 IPC. 18. On the other hand, Ms. T. Jini, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that the prosecution has successfully proved the instant case beyond reasonable doubt, establishing that the petitioner has committed an offence Page No.# 11/18 punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. She submits that this is a case wherein an eyewitness has positively deposed before the Trial Court that the accused/petitioner caused grievous injury on the head of the victim, as a result of which the victim had to be treated in a private hospital at Dibrugarh and remained admitted in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) for four to five days while struggling for his life. She further submits that the injury caused squarely falls within the ambit of Clause Eighthly of Section 320 IPC, inasmuch as the injury endangered the life of the victim, though he ultimately survived. Therefore, according to her, the conviction and sentence passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Tezu, vide orders dated 05.06.2025 and 01.07.2025, do not warrant any interference by this Court. In support of her submissions, she has relied upon the case of Atma Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in 1980 Crl.L.J. 1226, wherein the High Court of Punjab and Haryana discussed the meaning of the expressions “dangerous to life” and “injury which endangers life”. She has also relied upon the case of Abdul Sayed vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the testimony of an injured witness is generally reliable in the absence of any material evidence to the contrary. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contends that this is not a fit case for interference with the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Tezu, vide orders dated 05.06.2025 and 01.07.2025. 19. Heard the submissions made by the respective counsel appearing for the parties and also considered the case laws referred to by them. This Court has also heard Mr. G. Tarak, learned counsel appearing for the informant/Respondent No. 2, who adopted the submissions advanced by the Page No.# 12/18 learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 20. In the instant case, it is discernible from the evidence of PW-1, Sri Nipen Mech, the father of the victim, that after the injury, he along with his elder son took the victim to Mahadevpur CHC, where initial first aid and stitches were administered to the victim, and thereafter the victim was referred to Dibrugarh for further treatment. PW-1 specifically stated that due to the cut injury on the victim’s forehead, the victim remained unconscious for about 4–5 days while admitted in the ICU of a private hospital named Aditya at Dibrugarh. This statement of PW-1 that the victim remained unconscious for 4–5 days in the ICU at Dibrugarh was neither contradicted nor rebutted in the cross-examination conducted by the defence. The aforesaid statement of PW-1 was duly corroborated by the statement of the victim, i.e., PW-2, who deposed that immediately after receiving first aid, when they returned to their residence, he became unconscious and regained consciousness only at the hospital in Dibrugarh. Therefore, the fact that the victim had to be taken to Dibrugarh and remained admitted in the ICU was never rebutted in the cross-examination. This fact regarding the seriousness of the injury, which was life-threatening or endangering to life, is further corroborated by the medical report submitted by PW-4, wherein the injury was described as grievous and the size of the injury was mentioned as 12 inches long. It is also seen from the deposition of PW-4 that he specifically stated that the length of the cut portion was about 10–12 inches and that the injury was grievous in nature and caused by a sharp weapon. Therefore, there remains no ambiguity that the victim suffered a grievous injury and had to be taken to Dibrugarh for further medical treatment. 21. PW-3, Sri Sukhen Gogoi, who is the sole eyewitness in the instant case, specifically deposed before the Trial Court that while he was speaking to one Page No.# 13/18 Okhil Mech of their village, he saw the victim, who was riding a motorcycle, being suddenly struck by the accused with a local dao on the head, as a result of which the victim sustained injuries and blood started oozing from the wound. He further deposed that the injury was such that blood was profusely oozing out and, upon seeing the victim in that condition, he became nervous and left the spot. PW-3 also denied the suggestion that the victim had hit the accused with his motorcycle and that he had therefore gone straight to his house without stopping even for a while. A careful consideration of the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of PW-3 makes it clear that his specific statement regarding witnessing the incident, wherein the accused struck the victim with a local dao causing grievous injury, has not been effectively challenged or shaken by the defence. The defence was unable to destroy or discredit the positive testimony of PW-3 regarding his witnessing of the aforesaid incident. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, the deposition of PW-3 with regard to witnessing the occurrence can safely be relied upon. 22. Though there are certain ambiguities regarding the discovery of the weapon of offence, on account of which some re-examination of the witnesses had taken place, the same cannot be termed as fatal to the prosecution case in the instant matter. This is for the reason that there is no denial of the fact that the injury was caused to the victim by the accused/petitioner, in view of the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3, which stands corroborated by the testimonies of PW-1, PW-4 and PW-5. It has also come on record that the accused/petitioner had paid a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards the medical treatment of the victim, and the said fact has not been rebutted by the defence. 23. PW-5, the Investigating Officer, deposed that despite his best efforts, he could not arrest the accused/petitioner as he was absconding during the course Page No.# 14/18 of the investigation. He also reiterated the depositions made by the victim, PW-1 and PW-3. His specific statements made during his deposition were likewise not rebutted by any contradictions on behalf of the defence. 24. In view of the aforesaid depositions and facts, it is to be examined whether the testimonies of the eyewitness and other witnesses are sufficient to clearly establish the guilt of the accused/petitioner. Insofar as the testimony of the injured witness is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in various judgments, has held that where a witness to the occurrence has himself sustained injuries in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be highly reliable, as he comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare the actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate another person. In this regard, reference may be made to the case of Abdul Sayed (Supra) and paragraph No. 28 of the said judgment, being relevant, is extracted hereinbelow: “28. The law on the point can be summarized to the effect that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in the law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds of rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein.” 25. In view of the aforesaid observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is seen that, in the instant case, the said principle is squarely applicable, as the victim himself has deposed that he sustained injuries due to being struck with a dao by the accused/petitioner. It is further seen that his statement has neither Page No.# 15/18 been controverted nor rebutted by any evidence adduced by the defence nor have any material contradictions in the prosecution story been brought on record. In the absence of any material to discredit such testimony of the victim, reliance upon the same cannot be denied. 26. In the instant case, PW-3 is the witness who, as per the prosecution story, has seen the occurrence and his statement has been duly corroborated by the statements of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-5. Additionally, insofar as the injury is concerned, the gravity of the injury has been corroborated by the evidence of PW-4, i.e., the Medical Officer. Therefore, he being the star witness and his evidence having remained uncontroverted, reliance placed upon his statement can certainly be made. 27. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catena of cases, has held that a conviction can be based on the evidence/deposition of a sole witness. In the instant case, PW-3 is the sole witness who has deposed in clear terms that he saw the accused/petitioner inflicting a dao blow on the victim, whereby the victim sustained grievous injuries. This deposition is corroborated by the testimony of the victim. Therefore, the prosecution has been successful in establishing its case beyond reasonable doubt. In this connection, the case of Prabhat Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2020) 4 SCC 33, being relevant, is referred to, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a conviction can be based on the evidence/deposition of a sole witness. Paragraph 12 of the aforesaid case of Prabhat Singh (Supra), being relevant, is extracted hereinbelow. “12. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the appellants herein - original accused 2 to 5 are convicted by the Learned Trial Court and the High Court solely relying upon the evidence/deposition of PW-8 -Mullo Page No.# 16/18 Bai. It cannot be disputed that there can be a conviction relying upon the evidence/deposition of the sole witness. However, at the same time, the evidence/deposition of the sole witness can be relied upon, provided it is found to be trustworthy and reliable and there are no material contradictions and/or omissions and/or improvements in the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the question which is posed for consideration of this Court is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, can the appellants herein, original accused 2 to 5 be convicted relying upon the deposition of the sole witness PW-8 and whether the PW-8 is a reliable and trustworthy witness to convict the appellants herein, original accused 2 to 5?” 28. A similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sudip Kumar Sen v. State of West Bengal, reported in (2016) 3 SCC 26. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereinbelow: “11. It is well settled that Court may act on a testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated, provided that the testimony of the single witness is found reliable. The Trial Court which had the opportunity of seeing and hearing PW-6 found him wholly reliable and trustworthy and held that evidence of Sandeepan Mazumdar, PW-6 cannot be doubted as far as the role attributed to A-1 to A-6 except Jishu Jain is concerned, which was affirmed by the High Court. We find no ground to interfere with the concurrent finding recorded by the courts below as the reliability of PW-6 and to record the conviction. 12. Observing that there is no impediment for recording conviction based on the testimony of a single witness provided that it is reliable in Prithipal Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 10, it was observed as under : (SCC p. 29, para 49) “49. This Court has consistently held that as a general rule the Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in Page No.# 17/18 convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of section 134 of the Evidence Act. But if there are doubts about the testimony, the Court will insist on corroboration. In fact, it is not the number or the quantity, but the quality that is material. The time-honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. The legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence, rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is, therefore, open to a competent Court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record conviction. Conversely, it may acquit the accused in spite of testimony of several witnesses if it is not satisfied about the quality of evidence. [See Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614; Sunil Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi), 2003 11 SSC 367; Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 14 SSC 150 and Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of W.B., (2010) 12 SSC 91]” 29. It is quite clear that if the evidence of an independent witness is trustworthy, it can serve as the sole basis for convicting an accused. However, in the instant case, in addition to the testimony of PW-3, the same has been corroborated by the statements of PW-2 and PW-4. Therefore, there is no doubt that the prosecution has successfully established its case against the accused/petitioner. 30. Now, coming to the recovery of the weapon of offence, in the instant case, there is some confusion regarding the recovery and certain discrepancies exist in the statements of the witnesses. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catena of cases, has held that the recovery of the weapon of offence is not fatal and is not invariably essential in a criminal case. In this connection, reliance can be placed on Rakesh and Others v. State of UP, reported in (2021) 7 SCC Page No.# 18/18 188, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that for convicting an accused, the recovery of the weapon used in the commission of the offence is not a sine qua non. Therefore, in the instant case, in light of the evidence discussed above, the non-recovery of the weapon of offence is not fatal. 31. Mr. Deori, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has referred to the case of Jiban Das (Supra). However, from the evidence available in the instant case, including the Medical Report and the statement of PW-4, it is clear that the injury suffered by the victim falls within the Clause Eightly of Section 320 of the IPC. Therefore, the case referred to by the petitioner is of no relevance in the instant case. 32. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has established its case through reliable, cogent and material evidence regarding the guilt of the accused/petitioner. The evidence on record is sufficient for this Court to conclude that the involvement of the accused/petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence is proved beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court has rightly convicted the accused/petitioner in the instant case. 33. In view of the aforesaid, the instant criminal revision petition is rejected and disposed of. 34. Trail Court Record is to be sent back immediately. JUDGE Comparing Assistant