The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of relevant sections of the IPC and Arms Act in determining the guilt of the accused persons in an assault and shooting incident.

C.R. Sarma, J.

1. Heard Mr. M.K. Roy, learned Counsel for the Appellants. Also heard Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Special PP for the State.

2. By this appeal, the judgment and order dated 3.6.2005 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Khowai in ST No. 20 (WT/K) of 2004 has been challenged.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, may be stated as follows:

On 23.1.2003 at about 5.30/6.00 p.m. about 6/7 miscreants, dressed in Assam Rifles uniform, being armed with fire arms trespassed into the house of Smt. Sadhana Debbarma (informant) at East Tekchhaia village under Champahowar Police Station. The informant could recognize the Appellants and Binode Debbarma (absconder). The said miscreants asked Sri Paresh Debbarma, the husband of the informant as to whether he had raised subscription from the villagers. As the husband of the informant expressed his inability to collect subscription, the said miscreants, who dragged and assaulted her husband, had shot at his back causing serious injury to him. The miscreants aforesaid also assaulted the informant, when she tried to rescue her husband. The injured was immediately taken to hospital for treatment.

4. The Police on receipt of oral information from the wife of the injured reduced the same to written complaint and registered a case under Sections 148/149/326/307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and launched investigation in to the matter. At the close of the investigation, Police submitted the chargesheet against (1) Sri Kamalakanta Debbarma, (2) Sri Samprai Debbarma, (3) Sri Sukha Ranjan Debbarma, (4) Sri Malendra Debbarma, (5) Sri Bodhijung Debbarma and (6) Sri Binode Debbarma under Sections 148/326/307 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Sri Binode Debbarma was shown as absconder. The offences being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed by the learned SDJM, Khowai to the Court of Sessions.

5. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge framed the charge against the Appellants and three others for the offences under Sections 148/326/307 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and Section 27 (2) of the Arms Act to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty.

6. The prosecution examined 8 witnesses including the Investigating Officer and the Medical officer. At the close of the evidence for the prosecution the accused persons were examined under Section 313CrPC. Denying the allegations brought against them, the accused persons declined to adduce evidence. Considering the evidence on record, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge held that the prosecution failed to establish the charges against the accused persons, namely, (1) Sri Sukh Ranjan Debbarma, (2) Sri Kamalakanta Debbarma and (3) Samprai Debbarma and accordingly, they were acquitted from the liability of the charges brought against them. However, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge found the Appellants guilty of the offences charged against them and accordingly convicted them by the impugned judgment and order for the offence under Sections 147/326/307 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and Section 27(1) of the Arms Act and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment (hereinafter called RI) for two years for the offence under Section 147 IPC. They were also sentenced to suffer RI for ten years for the offence under Section 307 IPC. The Appellants were further directed to suffer RI for three years for the offence under Section 27 (1) of the Arms Act.

7. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence the Appellants have come up with the present appeal.

8. I have heard the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the evidence on record. In order to appreciate the evidence on record, it will be appropriate to reproduce, in brief, the evidence of the witnesses.

The informant, Smt. Sadhana Debbarma, deposing as PW 1, stated that 7/8 persons including the Appellants entered her house and forcibly dragged her husband from their house and fired at him on the road. She also s