JUDGMENT :

ROBIN PHUKAN, J.

1. The appellant before us stood convicted by the learned Session Judge, Yupia, in Session Case No. 147/2013 (YPA), under Section 332 IPC and sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of 1(one) year, with a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to suffer further period of 3(three) months. The learned Sessions Judge further ordered that the fine amount, if realised shall be paid to the victim and it is also ordered that the State Legal Service authority shall pay to the victim appropriate compensation as per entitlement.

2. The factual background leading to filing of the present appeal is briefly stated as under:

On 02.05.2009 at about 9.30 hours, the Officer-in-charge, SI A. Madal of Sagalee P.S. received one telephonic information from one Teli Talum, Teacher of Govt. Higher Secondary School, to the effect that the accused Tarak Mangha is creating problem in the old market area of Sagalee with his gun. On receipt of such information, he along with a team of constable proceeded to the place of occurrence and reached the house of the accused and enquired about the gun firing and then the accused replied that Police has nothing to do with his domestic matter and when further enquiry was made, the accused suddenly came out of his house with a dao and administered a blow to SI A Mandal and caused serious injuries over the left temporal region. He was overpowered and the dao was snatched and seized and some empty cartridges of one SBBL gun was recovered from his house. On receipt of one FIR to that effect, from SI A Mandal, the O.C. Sagalee P.S. registered Sagalee P.S. Case No. 07/2009, under Sections 333/188/286/336, read with Section 25(1B)(a) Arms Act and investigation was being carried out, which culminated in submission of Charge-sheet against the appellant to stand trial in the Court, under Sections 333/188/286/336/307 IPC, read with Section 25(1B)(a)/27 (I) Arms Act. The appellant appeared before the learned Court of the Session Judge, Yupia, and thereafter, the learned Court below, after hearing both the parties, framed charge against the appellant under Section 333/307 IPC and on being read and explained over, the appellant pleaded not guilty to the same. Thereafter, the learned Court below has examined as many as 10 witnesses and after closing the prosecution/evidence, the learned Court below has examined the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he pleaded innocent and the accused also examined 3 witnesses to prove the same. Thereafter, after hearing the learned Advocates of both sides, the learned Court below found the appellant guilty under Sections 333/332 IPC and convicted him and sentenced as aforesaid.

3. Being highly aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of and order of conviction and sentence, the appellant preferred this appeal for setting aside the judgment of the learned Court below on the ground that:

(i) That, the learned Court below erred in law and fact, in passing the impugned judgment and order dated 31.10.2019.

(ii) That, the learned Court below failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective and passed the impugned order wrongly and arbitrarily and that the learned Court below has failed to appreciate the contradiction in the version of the prosecution witnesses and arrived at an erroneous finding.

(iii) That, the prosecution side has failed to prove the charge against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt.

(iv) That, the weapon of offence, though seized in connection with the case has not been exhibited in the Court and therefore, it is contended to set aside the impugned judgment and order and to acquit the appellant.

4. I have heard Mr. M. Batt, learned counsel for the appellant and also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

5. Mr. M. Batt, learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is inherent inconsistencies in the version of the prosecution witnesses and that the prosecution side has failed to prove the charges again