H.N. Sarma, J.

1. Being unable to accept the verdict of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon acquitting the accused/respondents from the charges under Sections 147/447/448/323/325/436, IPC in Sessions case No. 16 of 2000 vide judgment and order dated 31-8-2001, the State of Assam preferred this appeal.

2. Heard Mr. K. Munir, learned Addl. PP, Assam for the State of Assam and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. I. Uddin, learned advocate for the accused/respondents.

3. The prosecution case was initiated on the basis of an FIR dated 21-2-1996 lodged by one Must. Pariban Nessa with the O/C, Morigaon Police Station who was examined in the case as P.W. 1 alleging inter alia that on 20-2-1996 at about 8.00 p.m. while her son Md. Mazibur Rahman was returning home an altercation took place with the accused persons who were engaged in erecting a gate for the Idd festival and after his returning home the accused persons namely Azad Ali, Tazimuddin Suleman Ali, Firoz Ali, Irfan Ali, Nurul Haque, Md. Pipili, Abu Hussain Babuli, Dilwar Hussain and Danti armed with dao, lathi etc. trespassed into their compound and assaulted her husband Md. Habibur Rahman. Accused also assaulted Md. Makinur Rahman, Miss Lilima Begum and Musstt. Pariban Nessa, informant with the blunt edge of dao causing grievous injuries on their person. The injured persons were brought to the Civil Hospital for treatment. The accused persons also set on fire the dwelling house of the informant causing damage to the extent of Rs. 25,000/-. On receipt of the FIR said Morigaon PS Case No. 26/96 was registered and the process of investigation was undertaken by the investigating agency. During the course of investigation, the statement of the witnesses were recorded, injury report of the victim was collected, articles seized, accused were arrested and upon completion of the investigation having found a prima facie case, charge-sheet under Sections 147/447/323/325/436, IPC was submitted against the accused. The case being triable by the Court of Sessions Judge was committed for necessary trial to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon wherein it was registered as Sessions Case No. 16/2000. On the basis of the documents and materials submitted under Section 173, Cr. P.C. and upon hearing the prosecution and defence charges under the aforesaid Section of law were framed against the accused persons and on being explained, they denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses including the Doctor and I.O., whereas the defence examined none. At the end of the trial, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge vide impugned judgment and order acquitted the accused persons holding them not to be guilty of the offence under which they were charged. Mr. Munir, learned PP has submitted that in spite of the prosecution having been able to prove the case against at least some of the accused persons, the learned Sessions Judge, after mis-appreciating and misconstruing both the oral as well as documentary evidence in most mechanical manner acquitted the accused persons on flimsy ground which cannot be supported by law. Learned PP further submits that careful appreciation of the evidence of the witnesses of the P.Ws. more particularly P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3, it cannot be held that the charges against the accused persons/respondents are clearly proved and hence, they are liable to be convicted setting aside the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Judge. Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel supporting the impugned judgment on the other hand submits that the appellate Court should be slow in decision in such a case of acquittal more particularly when, as the occurrence took place way back in the year 1996. Learned Sr. counsel further submits that there are lots of contradiction on the statement of the P.Ws. and the prosecution could not prove the case against any of the accus