VIKRAMADITYA PRASAD, J. - (1.) THE appellant, Rabindra Kumar Jha, stands convicted for offence under Section 307, 326 and 387/511, IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years with a fine of Rs. 5000/ - or in default to pay, one year SI under Section 307, IPC, further to undergo RI for 5 years with a fine of Rs. 5000/ - or in default, one year SI under Section 326, IPC, further to undergo RI for 2 years with a fine of Rs. 2000/ - under Section 387/ 511, IPC and in default to pay the fine, to undergo SI for 6 months. This appeal has been preferred against that conviction and sentence on trial.
(2.) THE prosecution case as per the fardbeyan of PW 4, Saiyad Md. Imtiyaz, the informant -injured, is that on 5.3.2001 and about 5.30 p.m. when he was going on a motor cycle on road in between A. C.C. Gate and F.C.I. Gate near a Khatal, he was stopped by the accused Rabindra Kumar Jha and questioned as to whether he was the brother of Munna Babu, he replied that he was the nephew of Munna Babu. The informant also exclaimed as to what did the accused want. The accused replied that he had to take revenge of old enmity. The accused in the meantime struck the neck of the informant on the front side by means of a sharp edged Razor, resulting into severe neck cut injures. The informant fell down with his motor cycle, but fortunately one unknown person took the injured informant on the same motor cycle to F.C.I. Hospital, Sindri. The informant was treated in the said hospital. The defence version of the case is denial of the occurrence.
(3.) THE questions to be answered in this appeal are (i) whether a person having an injury of the nature on the neck caused by sharp on (over) throat with severing muscles, veins, arteries and trachea of 4" x 2" x 1", which was caused upon the throat below the cricoid cartiladge, the nature of which was found to be grievous can make statements when he was brought to the hospital with the aforesaid injury, (ii) whether, if he cannot make such a statement, the entire prosecution can fail on the ground that the implication of the accused was false, (iii) whether in absence of any repeated blow, the injury did constitute an offence under Section 307, IPC and (iv) whether non - examination of the witness who allegedly brought the injured to hospital makes the prosecution case disbelievable ?;