The prosecution must prove the accusations beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused must be given a fair opportunity to explain the case made against them.

JUDGMENT :

MALASRI NAND, J.

1. Heard Mr. A. Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the accused-appellant. Also heard Ms. T. Jini, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent No. 1 and Mr. H. Lampu, learned counsel for the informant.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.02.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Teju in Sessions Case No. 10/L/2010, whereby the accused/appellants were convicted under section 352/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months each with fine of Rs. 500/- each in default of payment of fine shall suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days each. Both the accused appellants were also convicted under section 448/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five months each with a fine of Rs. 1000/- each in default, one month simple imprisonment. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The brief facts of the case is that on 27.01.2010, an FIR was lodged by one Robin Nani, Executive Engineer, PWD, Arunachal Pradesh, before the officer-in-charge Anini police station stating inter alia that on that day at around 06:45 p.m. when he returned back home from office and was changing his clothes, the appellant Ngapi Tayu followed by another appellant Rijam Melo entered into his bedroom with a dao and kicked his servant Birey Mijar who was lighting the Bukhari and the appellants also charged him with the said dao which was defended by him by holding the said dao. In the meantime, his younger brother Nani Obin came to the spot and intervened and tried to specify the appellants. Though he tried to convince both the appellants out of which one of the appellants Rijam Melo took the said dao hanging on the wall and rushed to him. Somehow they resisted and both the appellants fled away with the said dao.

4. On receipt of the complaint, a case was registered vide Anini P.S. Case No. 02/2010 under Sections 452/352/506/34 IPC and investigation was initiated. Though it is not reflected in the FIR that the servant of the informant Birey Mijar died due to the alleged incident, however, after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the present appellants under section 452/352/506/302/426/34 IPC. As the offence under section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the case was committed accordingly.

5. During the course of trial, charge was framed under section 352/506/302/426/34 IPC which was read over and explained to the appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove the guilt of the accused/appellants, prosecution examined 15 witnesses and exhibited some documents. On the other hand, the appellants also adduced three witnesses in support of their case. After completion of trial, statement of the appellants were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein incriminating materials found in the evidence of the witnesses were put to them to which they denied the same and pleaded their innocence. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, both the appellants were convicted as aforesaid. Hence, this present appeal has been preferred before this Court.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants has argued that there are material discrepancies and contradictions in the testimony of the star witnesses of the prosecution. It is further argued that none of the prosecution witness has supported the case of the prosecution and there is no cogent evidence laid on record to prove the guilt of the appellants.

8. It is also argued that there is no independent public witness in the present case apart from the complainant himself and his brother, being that of interested witness, cannot be relied upon. Arguing further, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt due to tainted testimony of the prosecution witnesses. Hence, the appellants are entitled