Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 326, 34

(a) Witness- Evidence-Delay-Statement of injured recorded after 20 days and accused named only in that statement-Explana tion for delay : Injured was in hospital due to his tongue having been cut and was not in a position to make statement-Delay in making statement in circumstances, held, did not discredit testimony of witness-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 326/34. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) S. 326/34-Benefit of doubt-Tongue of injured cut and accused A charged for cubing tongue and accused B for twisting neck of injured Accused C at most found to have participated in obtaining thumb -impression of injured on a blank piece of paper and to 'have accompanied accused A and B for that purpose only-No indication available in statement of injured that accused C had a pre planned design to cut tongue-Reasonable doubt appearing about accused C's participation in crime-Accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted in circumstances. Date of hearing : 24th November 1969.   JUDGMENT The appellants were convicted for an offence under section 326/34, P. P. C. and sentenced to undergo R. I. for 5 years by the learned Additional City Magistrate empowered under section 30, Cr. P. C. The incident had taken place on 1-12-67 at 4-30 a.m. in the street at a distance of about 100 paces from the house of the injured Ashfaqur Rehman. ' The first report was lodged on the same day at 1-40 p.m. by Mst. Mahmuda Begum wife of the injured at Liaqatabad Police Station and it was recorded by Mr. Tajammul Hussain A. S. I. P. In this incident a portion of the tongue of Ashfaqur Rehman was chopped off. Ashfaqur Rehman injured lived with his family in a house situated at a distance of about 100 paces from the scene of offence. Mst. Mahmooda Begum is his wife while Nafisur Rahman is his son. Nur Ahmed son of Mohd. Siraj is brother of Mst. Mahmooda Begum and was also said to be living in the same house. Mahboob alias Baboo and Mohd. Sharif had their shops in the same street and at night they used to sleep in their respective shops. They are not related to the deceased. The deceased was employed as bus driver by Izhar Hussain appellant. He had caused some accident and, therefore, he…