H.N. Sarma, J.

1. Being aggrieved by conviction and sentence inflicted upon the appellants by the learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Udaipur, convicting the appellants under Sections 148/326/307, I.P.C. in Case No. S.T. No. 65(ST)(U)/2000, the present appeal is filed by the convict appellants. The learned trial Judge convicted the appellants under Section 148, I.P.C. and sentenced them to suffer R.I. for one year, under. Sections 326/149, I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to suffer further R.I. for four years and under Sections 307/141, I.P.C. sentencing each of them to suffer further R.I. for three years, directing the sentences to run consecutively.

2. Heard Mr. A.C. Bhowmik, assisted by Mr. Arijit Bhowmik, learned Counsels appearing for the appellants and Mr. D. Sarkar, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

3. On the basis of an FIR dated 28-3-98 lodged by one Sanjib Das, PW 1 the prosecution case was set in motion wherein it is alleged inter alia, that on that date in between 9.00 to 9.30 a.m. in the morning the cousin of the informant Sri Sanjeev Das (PW 2) was attacked by five accused persons named in the FIR with dao, kirish, bomb and chased the victim upto sweet meat shop of Tapan Debnath where he fell down on the ground in a bleeding condition. In the FIR the names of the appellant Nos. 1 to 5 had been mentioned as assailants. It is further stated in the FIR that the said accused persons first injured the victim in front of Debnath Electric shop at Salgara Bazar and he was then chased upto the sweet stall where he fell down and the informant and the eye-witness were present at that time at the sweetmeat shop. The said Information was lodged with the R.K. Pur Police Station on the basis of which police registered R.K. Pur Police Station Case No. 65/95 under Sections148/149/326/307, I.P.C. Upon registration of the FIR necessary process relating to investigation was set into operation.

4. During the course of investigation the I/O examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, seized articles and after procuring the injury report of the victim and having found a prima facie case submitted charge-sheet against the appellants. Although in the FIR the names of the appellant Nos. 1 to 5 were mentioned, charge-sheet was submitted against all the appellants including appellant Nos. 6, 7 and 8 as according to the I/O, sufficient materials were collected against them also during the course of investigation. The learned Magistrate having found the case to be triable by the Court of Sessions committed the proceeding to the court of the learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, wherein it was registered as ST Case No. 65(ST)(U)/2000. After appearance of the accused, the case was transferred to the Court of the learned Asst. Sessions Judge for necessary disposal. On the basis of the documents and materials submitted with the charge-sheet under Section 173, Cr.P.C. and upon hearing both sides, the learned trial Judge framed charges against the appellants under Sections 148/149/307/326, I.P.C. and on being explained over to them they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to substantiate the charges prosecution examined as many as ten prosecution witnesses including the doctor and I/O. The defence also examined one defence witness, as DW 1.

At the end of trial, learned trial Judge held all the charges as proved and convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner as indicated above which is the subject-matter of the present appeal.

6. Mr. Bhowmik, learned Counsel for the appellants made elaborate arguments questioning the legality and justifiability of the conviction and sentences imposed upon the appellants, pointing out specifically that the learned trial court totally failed to appreciate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in its proper perspective and mis-applied the provisions of the penal sections with which the appellants are charged and prayed for their acquittal. Mr. D. Sarkar, the learned P.P., ho