The judgment emphasizes the importance of clear proof of intention to kill in cases of attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC, and the need to consider all circumstances to determine the intention of the accused.

JUDGMENT

Rumi Kumari Phukan, J. - Heard Mr M K Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N K Kalita, learned Addl. P.P. for the State/respondent.

2. The present appeal has been preferred challenging the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated 16.03.2019, passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur, in Sessions Case No. 8/2015, thereby convicting and sentencing the accused/appellant to undergo RI for a period of one month with fine of Rs. 500/-, i/d 7 days SI for the offence under Section 341 IPC, to undergo RI for a period of 5 years with fine of Rs. 2000/-, i/d 3 months SI for the offence under Section 326 IPC and to undergo RI for a period of 10 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, i/d 6 months SI for the offence under Section 307 IPC.

3. One Md Ataur Rahman lodged an FIR on 25.02.2011 with the Officer-In-Charge of Dhekiajuli Police Station, alleging, inter alia, that on 25.02.2011 at 8 am, his brother Mojibur Rahman was returning from the field towards the house and then near the house of one Sirajul Islam, all the accused persons (10 in number) as per the direction of accused No. 1, Nurul Islam armed with dao, lathi, jung, khukri, iron rod, dagger etc. came out from the jungle and attempted to kill his brother, Mujibur. Accused Ikram Ali stabbed his brother with a khukri at his belly, neck and other parts of the body, resulting big cut injury at the back side of his neck and other parts of the body. When his brother tried to save himself from the stab of the accused Ikram, the thumb finger of his left hand was cut off and fell down. The remaining accused persons also assaulted his brother with the weapons in their hands and as a result, his brother sustained grievous injuries on several parts of the his body. At that time, hearing hue and cry of his brother, his elder brother Motibur Rahman rushed the place of occurrence and attempted to save his younger brother and then the accused persons assaulted his elder brother mercilessly. Sustaining injuries Motibur turned unconscious. Thereafter, the nearby people rescued his brothers and accused persons fled away from the place of occurrence. Police of Borsola shifted his injured brothers to Dhekiajuli Civil Hospital and subsequently, Mujibur was shifted to Guwahati.

4. Upon receipt of the ejahar, Dhekiajuli PS Case No. 69/2011, under Sections 341/147/148/149/325/326/307 IPC was registered and on completion of investigation, the charge sheet was submitted against 10 accused persons under Sections 341/147/148/149/325/307 IPC and consequent to that, learned JMFC, Tezpur committed the case to the Hon''ble Court of Sessions, Sonitpur, being the offence under Section 307 IPC, triable by the Court of Sessions.

5. All accused persons faced the trial and denied the charges framed under Sections 341/147/148/149/326/307 IPC and claimed to be tried. During trial, prosecution side examined as many as 11 nos. of witnesses, including the informant and the victim. Accused persons were examined under Section 313 CrPC and their pleas of denial were recorded in separate sheet and kept with the record. The defence also adduced three witnesses in their defence.

6. At the conclusion of the trial, the present accused appellant was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid and rest of the accused persons were acquitted by the learned trial Court. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 16.03.2019, passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur in Sessions Case No. 8/2015, the the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant has advanced his argument that there is no proper appreciation of evidence on record and the learned trial Court failed to apply its judicious mind while arriving at the conclusion, which is contrary to the principles of criminal jurisprudence. It has also been urged that the vital evidence of injured as well as the eyewitnesses suffered fro