The prosecution's case must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is a fundamental principle in criminal trials.

B.K. Sharma, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal under Regulation 27 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulations, 1945, read with Section 374(3) and 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the judgment and order dated 3.9.2004 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions, Fast Track Court, West Zone, Yupia, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh, in Sessions case No. 230/2002 (FTC) corresponding to GR Case No. 8/92, by which the accused-Appellant was convicted under Sections 326/333/308, IPC, and sentenced him to undergo RI for four years with fine of Rs.17,000.00 for the offence committed under Section 333, IPC and in default to undergo SI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000.00 for the offence committed under Section 308, IPC. Further, a sum of Rs.15,000.00 has also been awarded as compensation to be paid to the victim Shri Tallo Jarjo, Sub-Inspector of Police, who has injured in the incident.

2. On the basis of an FIR lodged by one Sri Bang Tangzang, Sub-Inspector of Police, Naharlagun Police Station, the Naharlagun P.S. Case No. 12/91 under Sections 326/333/308/34, IPC, was registered which eventually culminated to GR Case No. 8/92 under Sections 326/333/308, IPC, and subsequently to Sessions Case No. 230/2002 (FTC).

3. As per the story narrated in the FIR, the informant along with some other police personnel (13 numbers) had visited the house of the accused-Appellant in search of one Shri Lakhan Paswan who involved in Naharlagun P.S. Case No. 11/91 under Sections 354/448/325, IPC. When the police party reached the house of the accused-Appellant, the accused-Appellant and his wife obstructed the police personnel from entering the house and the accused-Appellant took out a knife (home made dagger) and injured two police personnel, namely Shri Tallo Jarjo, and Shri K. Ronya, both Sub-Inspector of Police. While Shri Jarjo received grievous injury, Shri Ronya received simple injury.

4. In due course the police submitted charge sheet against the accused-Appellant. It appears that although in the FIR allegations against the wife of the accused-Appellant were also made to the effect that she along with her husband, the accused-Appellant, obstructed the police personnel, but such allegation against the wife of the accused-Appellant was not pursued and no charge sheet was submitted against her. Although Section 34, IPC, was added at the time of registration of the Police Case, later on Section 34, IPC, was dropped. However, there is no explanation as to why the allegations against the wife of the accused-Appellant were dropped.

5. As per the FIR lodged, the occurrence took place on 10.2.91 at night about 20.35 hours. After submission of the charge sheet the case proceeded only against the accused-Appellant. The prosecution examined altogether 11 witnesses, while the accused-Appellant examined 5 witnesses. In the statements of the accused-Appellant recorded under Section 364, Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused-Appellant denied the commission of offence. In his statement to Question No. 5 "Do you want to say anything before the Court and do you want to bring anymore defence witness? The accused-Appellant answered thus "I am an innocent. They came at about 8.30 P.M. The police personnel broke the door of my house at the time of incident. I was sleeping with my daughter. The light was broken by the police, TV was also broken by the Police. I had a tussle with the police personnel. The police hit me by a lathi in my head. Blood came out of my head. I have not inflicted. The case is long pending, hence I pray to the Court to dismiss the case."

6. As per the injury report furnished by the Medical Officer of the General Hospital, Naharlagun, PW-10, while Shri T. Jarjo received grievous injuries, Shri K. Ronya received simple injuries. As per the injury report Shri T. Jarjo received injuries on his forearm and chest. The Doctor who examined the injured was examined as P.W. 10. In reference to th