JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred from Jail against the judgment and order dated 17.06.2016, passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, East Sessions Division, Tezu in Sessions Case No. 13 (LDV)/2014. By the impugned judgment, the accused appellant has been convicted under Sections 326/307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 (five) years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only for the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for 7 (seven) years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Before coming to the impugned judgment, it would be convenient to state the facts of the case in brief.

3. An Ejahar was lodged by one Shri Deep Gurung (PW-2) before the Roing Police Station on 02.06.2013 stating, inter-alia, that on the same day, at about 9.00 p.m. the accused appellant, who was a casual labour of the P.H.E. Department, had come drunk and started throwing stones on the tin roof of the house, for which, the informant had come out and scolded him. After sometime, while the informant was sitting in the house of Shri Prakash Das (PW-1), the accused appellant had suddenly attacked him with a dao inflicting severe injuries with the intention to kill, but somehow, the neighbours came and saved him. On the basis of the written Ejahar, Roing P.S. Case No. 43/2013 under Sections 307/326 of the Indian Penal Code was registered and the investigation had started. After completion of the investigation, the Charge-Sheet was submitted against the accused appellant and on denial of the charge, the trial begun.

4. Shri Prakash Das, in whose house the incident had happened, had deposed as PW-1. He categorically stated that he was all along present during the incident and saw the accused appellant hitting the victim with a dao twice, first at his right cheek and second on the left shoulder. He further deposed that the people who had gathered had caught the accused appellant with dao and taken to the Roing Police Station while the injured was taken to the hospital. Interestingly, no cross-examination was done to the said witness.

5. The injured, Shri Deep Gurung, had deposed as PW-2. His version is consistent with the FIR which he had lodged and had categorically stated about the assault with dao by the accused appellant. The said PW-2 was also not cross-examined.

6. PW-3, Shri Rinku Thapa, was also present at the place of occurrence and was an eye witness to the incident. He had deposed of witnessing the assault on the victim by the accused appellant with a dao and this witness was also not cross-examined.

7. Smt. Indra Maya Gurung, wife of the injured, had deposed as PW-4. The said PW-4 was also an eye witness and saw the assault made to her husband. As in case of the other PWs. PW-4 was also not cross-examined.

8. The Doctor, who attended the informant, was examined as PW-5, who deposed of finding 4 (four) cut injuries on the body including on the left cheek and left shoulder. He opined that the injury on the left cheek was grievous and the rest were simple which might have been caused by sharp cutting weapon like dao. In cross-examination, the Doctor, however, deposed that he had not seen the weapon of offence. He further denied the suggestion that the injuries will not cause the immediate death of the victim.

9. PW-6, Shri Sanu Sarki, is also an eye witness, who was present in the place of occurrence as he was repairing an electric light in the house of Shri Prakash Das (PW-1).

10. PW-7 is the Investigating Officer who had conducted the investigation. He gave all details of the investigation done and the FIR, Charge-Sheet, Sketch Map, Seizure List etc. were duly proved by him.

11. After completion of the examination of the PWs. the appellant accused was given a scope to explain as prescribed under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Interestingly, in reply to question No. 10, he admi