Delay in FIR and nomenclature of weapon do not invalidate testimony of a reliable injured victim.

The petitioner, Ananta Tanti, was convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Golaghat, under Sections 341, 326, and 307 of the IPC for attacking Keshab Karmakar (PW2) with a 'kalam kotari' (machete-like weapon) on 30.09.2022.

The victim sustained a deep cut injury (4x1½x1 inches) to the neck, requiring ICU admission.

The Sessions Judge, Golaghat, dismissed the appeal on 24.07.2025.

The petitioner filed this revision challenging the concurrent findings on the grounds of lack of intention, delay in FIR lodgment, discrepancies in the description of the weapon, and the fact that the weapon was not seized directly from him.

1. Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the discrepancy in the nomenclature of the weapon of offence are fatal to the prosecution's case?

2. Whether the conviction under Section 307 IPC is sustainable in the absence of explicit medical opinion on the "nature" of injury, given the location of the wound?

3. Whether the ingredients of Section 341 IPC (wrongful restraint) were established by the evidence on record?

The court applied Sections 307 (attempt to murder), 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons), and 341 (wrongful restraint) of the IPC.

Regarding the delay in FIR, the court relied on the three-judge bench decision in State of H.P. v. Gian Chand and Adalat Yadav v. State of Bihar (2026 INSC 403), establishing that delay is not fatal if satisfactorily explained by the victim's hospitalization.

For the evidentiary value of a single witness, the court applied Section 134 of the Evidence Act and the "quality over quantity" principle from Amar Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi).

The definition of "grievous hurt" was drawn from the "eighthly" limb of Section 320 IPC regarding injuries that endanger life.

The court found the testimony of the victim (PW2) to be of "sterling quality," corroborated by independent witnesses PW3 and PW4, who witnessed the petitioner pursuing the victim into a shop.

The court dismissed the contention regarding the weapon's nomenclature, ruling that 'dao' and 'kalam kotari' are functionally similar appliances.

The 14-day delay in FIR was held to be reasonably explained by the victim's critical condition in the ICU.

Although the medical officer (PW7) did not explicitly label the injury "grievous," the court determined that a 4-inch deep cut to the neck—a vital part—inherently endangers life and satisfies the criteria for both Section 326 and 307 IPC.

However, the court noted that the evidence showed the petitioner called the victim from behind rather than obstructing his movement, failing to meet the threshold for "wrongful restraint" under Section 341.

The Gauhati High Court partly allowed the revision; it modified and reduced the sentences to 4 years of rigorous imprisonment for each count (Sections 326 and 307), to run concurrently, while maintaining the original fines.