JUDGMENT :

1. I have heard Mr. M. Pertin, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. K. Dabi, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of accused-appellant, and Mr. G. Tado, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh, for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. M. Tunar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 (victim).

2. This appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment and order, dated 30-06-2022, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, West Sessions Division, Basar, District Leparada, Arunachal Pradesh. It is to be noted here that vide the impugned judgment and order, dated 30-06-2022, the learned Court below has convicted the appellant in Sessions Case No. 03/2018, under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, with default stipulation.

3. The factual background leading to the filing of the present appeal is adumbrated herein below:

“On 01-11-2016, one Smt. Yapa Kopdak, wife of Tama Kodak of Repin Colony, Taliha, lodged an FIR with the Officer-in-Charge of Taliha Police Station to the effect that on that day, at about 08.50 p.m., one Shri Tapor @ Niapor Maying, son of Shri Tabu @ Niaby Maying, Gandhi Colony, Taliha, attempted to commit murder her son-Shri Taro @ Maro Kodak by causing cut injury over his head by means of a dao, near the residence of Shri Sokum Paying without any reason. Upon receipt of the said FIR, the Officer-in-Charge of Taliha Police Station, registered the Taliha Police Station Case No. 04 of 2016, under Section 326 IPC and investigated into the same. During investigation, the Investigating Police Officer visited the place of occurrence, examined the witnesses and got the victim examined by Doctors, collected injury report, arrested the accused, forwarded him to the Court and, finally, submitted charge-sheet against the accused/appellant to stand trial in the Court under Sections 326/307 of the IPC. Thereafter, upon hearing the learned Advocates for both sides, the learned court below has framed charge against the accused-appellant under Sections 307/326 of the IPC and on being read and explained over the accused appellant pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, the learned court below had examined the prosecution witnesses and after closing the evidence examined the accused appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, hearing arguments of the learned advocates for both sides, the learned Court below had convicted the appellant under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid.”

4. Being highly aggrieved, the appellant approached this Court by filing the present appeal, contending to set aside the impugned judgment and order on the following grounds:-

(i) That, the learned Court below has erred in law as well as in facts and the impugned judgment is contrary to the law and the materials placed on record;

(ii) That, there is discrepancy in the version of the prosecution witnesses about the time of occurrence and the learned Court below has failed to appreciate the same;

(iii) That, there is also discrepancy in the version of the witnesses as regards the weapon of offence and the person from whom it was seized. As per the version of the Investigating Police Officer, the same was seized from the father of the accused and as per prosecution; the same was seized from the possession of the accused.

(iv) That, the weapon of offence was not sent for FSL examination to ascertain as to whether the same was used for committing the offence;

(v) That, there was sudden provocation on the part of the prosecution witness Nos. 2, 3, 4 and that all of them were interested witnesses and cannot be relied upon; and

(vi) That, the ingredients of offence under section 307 of the IPC is not established by the prosecution side;

(vii) That, the learned Court below also failed to appreciate the fact that a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-has been paid to the victim by the appellant, being the medical expense