JUDGMENT

T.C. Das, J. - The appellant Faizul Ali was tied up for trial under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Cachar at Silchar. The learned Sessions Judge, on receipt of the charge sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer, framed a charge under section 307, I.P.C. against the appellant, and thereafter the trial proceeded.

2. The prosecution case started on the basis of the F. I. R. lodged with the police by the injured Ambika Charan Roy himself to the effect that on 19.10.76 at about 8 p.m. the appellant Faizul Ali went to his house and asked for some kerosene oil. It was a dark night. After getting the kerosene oil the appellant asked for Rs. 50 from the complainant as loan. While the complainant refused, the accused appellant gave him dao blows on his shoulder at his back and right. The complainant, on receipt of such assaults which were grievous in nature shouted for the help. At his shouting some of his neighbours came but the accused fled away. The complainant did not name of his neighbours in the F.I.R. On the above allegation, the complainant lodged the ejahar on 20.10.76 i.e. the next day of the occurrence with-the Ratabari Police Station, which is admittedly at a distance of about 30 k.m. from the village Srirampur where the occurrence took place. On receipt of the F.I.R., investigation commenced and subsequently trial was held in the court of learned Sessions Judge as narrated above.

3. While the charge was explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty. Therefore, it was for the - prosecution to adduce evidence and to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

4. In course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses including the Doctor who treated the injured and the Investigating Officer; who investigated the case and examined the witnesses. On scrutiny of the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty under section 307, I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer R. I. for 5 years. The accused appellant being aggrieved by the said verdict of conviction and the consequent sentence thereof, has taken this appeal to this court for consideration of this court as to the propriety and legality of the judgment.

5. Mr. S. A. Laskar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has challenged the legality and validity of the judgment of the learned trial court and submitted that the finding of the learned trial court is not based on proper appreciation of evidence on record. On scrutiny of the evidence the conclusion arrived at by the learned Judge is erroneous and untenable. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, there cannot be any conviction upon the appellant. The learned counsel has also drawn my attention to the evidence of the witnesses and has submitted that the only witness is P. W. 1 for the occurrence and the rest of the witnesses were neither eye-witnesses nor the witnesses to any circumstance. Therefore, the evidence of P.W. 1 (informant) is the only evidence to e tested if he can be relied upon to base the conviction. I have also gone through the evidence of other P.Ws., namely P.Ws. 2 to 7. P.W. 2 is Bhakta Barman. In his evidence he has stated that P.W. 1 told him about accused Faizul who inflicted injuries on him. In cross examination he has further stated that "P.W. 1 himself told the name of the accused". In the evidence of P.W. 1 it is found that P. W. 1 shouted for the help of neighbours and in course of shouting he uttered the name of accused Faizul Ali. However, this portion of fact is missing conspicuously in the F.I.R. which was the first information lodged after the occurrence at the earliest. In the evidence of P. W. 7 (the Investigating Officer) it is found that P.W. 1 did not state before him that he called Bhakta and that he ever stated to Bhakta that he was assaulted by Faizul. This is no doubt a vital omission which amounts to contradiction. It is to be noted that in this cas