C.R. SARMA, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 16/12/2006, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Karimganj, in Sessions Case No. 105/2004. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge, held the appellant guilty of the offences under sections 326/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the "IPC") and section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life for his conviction under section 307 IPC, undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default suffer simple imprisonment for further period of one year for his conviction under section 326 IPC and suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default suffer simple imprisonment for another period of one year for his conviction under section 27 of the Arms Act.

Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the convict, as appellant, has come up with this appeal. We have heard Mr. F. H. Laskar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. K.A. Mazumdar, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State of Assam.

2. The prosecution case, as revealed at the trial, is that, on 28/9/2001, at about 4 P.M., the appellant, along with others, attacked Md. Abdul Latif (PW1), who was digging a hole in his land, for the use of his buffaloes and caused injures to his person, by opening fire from a gun. The injured was shifted to the Hospital, where he was required to undergo treatment as an indoor patient. During his treatment, multiple entry wounds of palettes, multiple radio opaque metallic foreign objects were found and 15 numbers of pallets were removed from his body.

3. An FIR was lodged with the Police, on 28/9/2009, and the same was registered as Kalibari PS Case No. 67/2001 under section 326/307/34 IPC read with section 25(1-b)/27 of the Arms Act. During the investigation, Police visited the place of occurrence, prepared a sketch map (Exhibit 6), recorded statement of the witnesses, seized the gun licence and a SBBL gun registered in the name of Haji Riyasor Ali vide Exhibit 7, seized 15 numbers of palettes recovered from the body of the injured, vide Exhibit 9. At the close of the investigation, Police submitted charge sheet against the appellant and three others under sections 326/307/34 IPC and section 25(1-b)/27 of the Arms Act. The charges were read over and explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty.

4. In order to prove their case, prosecution examined, as many as, ten witnesses, including the Medical Officers (PW5 and PW6) who examined the injured person and the Investigating Police Officers (PW9 and PW10). At the close of the evidence for the prosecution, the accused person was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the allegations, brought against him and declined to adduce defence evidence.

5. Considering the evidence, on record, the learned Sessions Judge, held the appellant guilty of the offences charged and accordingly convicted and sentenced him, as indicated above. The other accused persons were acquitted for want of evidence.

6. Mr. FA Laskar, learned counsel for the appellant, referring to the evidence, on record, has submitted that there is contradictions on material points, in the evidence of PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW7 and as such their evidence cannot be accepted. It is also pointed out that PW3, in the FIR, lodged by him, stated that 2 (two) young boys also went with the injured to dig hole and that four accused persons had attacked the injured, but PW4 and PW7 stated about involvement of the appellant and Md. Riasat. They did not indicate the presence of the other accused persons. They are silent regarding the presence of other accused persons and the young boys. It is also submitted that this witness stated that he could guess that bullet was fired from the western side. Therefore, it is submitted that the evidence of this witness is based on gues