Indira Shah, J.

This judgment and order dated 27.11.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 207/2012 convicting the appellant under Section 307/324/448 IPC and sentencing him thereby to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.5000/- in default of payment of find further rigorous imprisonment for 1 years for his conviction under Section 307 IPC, and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and find of Rs.1000/- in default of rigorous imprisonment for 3 months for the offence under Section 324 IPC and further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months with fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for 1 month for conviction under Section 448 IPC, is under challenge.

2. In the evening of 05.09.2012, Manager Arun Sarmah, Assistant Manager and Pronob Chutia of Hatigarh Matikhola Tea Estate were enjoying T.V. programme in the house of Saidur Rahman, compounder of the Tea Estate. At around 8.15 P.M. the appellant along with Loknath Gogoi, Phanidar Gogoi and Babu Gogoi armed with sharp weapons entered iinto the house compound of Saidur Rahman started uttering abusive words. The appellant Maina Gogoi @ Bipul went inside the house called Saidur's son Ashiquor Rahman, when Arju Rahman, wife of Sahidur Came out of kitchen, the accused gave dao blow on her neck which however landed on her shoulder. The accused thereafter inflicted cut injury on the back of her daughter Sajmin Rahman with the same chopper. The garden Manager somehow managed to drove accused out from the house. Arjun Rahman and Sajmin were shifted to Civil Hospital at Golaghat. Md. Saidur Rahman lodged the FIR on 06.09.2012 and on the basis of FIR Ghilahari P.S. Case No. 53/2012 under Section 448/326/307/506/34 IPC was registered. During the investigation police seized the blood stained cloth of Arjun and Sajmin. The chopper was seized from the house of the accused Loknath Gogoi. On the completion of investigation Charge-sheet against the accused Maina Gogoi @ Bipul, Loknath Gogoi, Phanidhar Gogoi and Babu Gogoi under Section 448/324/307/506/34 IPC laid.

3. The offence Under Section 307 IPC being exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, it was committed for trial to the Court of Sessions.

4. Charge under Section 448/324/307/506/34 IPC were framed against all four accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. Altogether 10 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Thereafter, statement of accused persons under Section 313 Cr. P. C was recorded wherein they denied all the allegations levelled against them. They however, declined to adduce any defence evidence.

6. Learned trial Court on conclusion of trial, while acquitted the accused Loknath Gogoi, Phanidhar Gogoi and Babu Gogoi held the accused Maina Gogoi guilty and convicted him under Section 307/324 and 448 IPC. He was then sentenced as stated earlier.

7. Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the victims in this case sustained simple injury and that too one on her shoulder and another on back. There was no material before the Court to convict the accused under Section 307 IPC or under any panel law.

8. The trial Court ought not to have believed the witnesses whose evidence was contradictory on material points.

9. It is further urged by the learned counsel that the weapon of assault i.e. chopper was seized from the house of Loknath Gogoi, who has been acquitted. There is nothing to show that the seized chopper was the weapon of assault. Neither the seized chopper nor the blood stained clothes were sent to FSL for serological examination.

10. Learned counsel has further urged that the prosecution could not establish where actually the occurrence took place, whether it was inside the house or the house compound of Sohidur. The sketch map drawn by the Investigating Officer shows that the place of occurrence was house compound which is contradictory to the evidence of ot