C.R. Sarma, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants. Also heard Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Addl. PP for the State.

2. This appeal under Section 374 (2) Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment and Order dated 27.9.2002 passed by the learned Asstt. Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur inst 10(ST/U)/2002 under Section 307 IPC. By the said impugned judgment, the learned Asstt. Sessions Judge convicted the Appellants for the offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 8 years. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the Appellants have come up with the present appeal on the ground that the learned trial Judge committed illegality by recording the conviction and sentence without any substantial evidence on record. The prosecution case, in brief, as revealed during trial may be stated as follows:

Sri Ananda Debbarma (P W1) lodged an FIR with the officer-in-Charge, Kakrabon outpost, alleging therein that, on 27.7.2000, his maternal uncle Sri Radhabasi Debbarma (PW 2) went to his rubber plantation at 5 pm in the morning. As the said PW 2 did not return home, at about 3 pm, the son of the said PW 2 went to their rubber garden and found that his father was lying in injured condition. The injured was accordingly taken to the hospital for treatment where he regained senses. The injured disclosed the names of the assailants to the PW 1 and PW 3 in the hospital. Accordingly, the FIR being lodged, the Police registered a case under Sections 148/149/325/307 IPC. During investigation. Police recorded the statements of the witnesses and collected the medical report. At the close of the investigation, Police submitted chargesheet against the Appellants and Ashish Debbarma (since deceased) and forwarded them to the Court to stand trial. The offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Asstt. Sessions Judge framed charges against the Appellants for the offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code to which they pleaded not guilty. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses including the medical officers PW 7 and PW 8 and Investigating officer P W 9. At the close of the evidence for the prosecution, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure . They denied the allegation and declined to adduce defence evidence. Learned Asstt. Sessions Judge considering the materials on record found the accused persons guilty of the offence charged and accordingly convicted them under Section 307Indian Penal Code and awarded punishment as aforesaid.

3. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the Appellants have come up with the present appeal. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants taking me through the evidence on record has submitted that there is not an iota of substantive evidence against the present Appellants and that the learned trial Judge committed illegality by convicting the Appellants without any evidence on record. It is also submitted that the charge under Section 307/34 Indian Penal Code was wrongly framed against the Appellants. The learned Addl. PP, supporting the impugned judgment and order, submitted that the learned trial Judge recorded the conviction and sentence on the basis of the evidence on record and that, the appeal was liable to be dismissed. In order to appreciate the counter arguments, advanced by the learned Counsels, appearing for both the parties, and to examine the correctness of the impugned judgment and order, I feel it appropriate to briefly recapitulate the evidence on record. In the present case, the charge was framed against the five persons for the offence under Section 307 IPC. In the charge, there was no mention regarding intention and knowledge. Even the learned trial Judge, while framing the charges against t