The court upheld the conviction for attempt to murder and grievous hurt, modifying the life sentence to 10 years based on the nature of the injuries and lack of intent to kill.

JUDGMENT & ORDER :

N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.

Heard Mr. A. Dhar, and Mr. D. Ghosh, learned counsels, appearing on behalf of the appellant. Also heard Ms. Topi Jini, and Mr. Gyati Tado, learned Additional Public Prosecutors, Arunachal Pradesh, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1, and Ms. Sum Valentine Darang, learned legal-aid-counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2/informant.

2. The instant appeal has been instituted by the appellant, herein, assailing the judgment, dated 01.04.2022, passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Khonsa, Tirap District, in Khonsa Sessions Case No. 14/2021, convicting the appellant under Section 307/326 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 25(1B)(a)/27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959.

The appellant, herein, has also assailed the order of sentence, dated 07.04.2022, sentencing the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life and payment of a fine of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 307/326 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as the further sentencing to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3(three) years and payment of a fine of Rs. 5000/- under Section 25(1B)(a)/27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959, and in default of payment of fine; to undergo simple imprisonment for 3(three) months. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The facts requisite leading to the institution of the present proceeding, is noticed as under:

On 28.12.2020, Shri Shiladita Chakma, as informant, lodged an First Information Report(FIR) before the Miao Police Station, inter alia, contending that on 27.12.2020, at around 7PM, his elder brother Rabindra Chakma informed him that one Shri Bhakta Chakma, appellant, herein, of the same village, had shot him with a local made gun(Chakma gun) from the backside while he was returning home from the agricultural field at about 6-6:30PM. It was further incorporated in the said First Information Report(FIR) that his elder brother had sustained bullet injuries on his body and in a serious condition, was taken to CHC, Miao, from where, he was referred to Margherita Civil Hospital. Thereafter, the elder brother of the informant was referred to Dibrugarh for further treatment.

On receipt of the said FIR, the police registered a case being Miao PS Case No. 16/2020 under Section 307/326 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 25(1B)(a)/27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959.

The appellant, herein, was detained and basing on his disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the weapon of offence was recovered from a bamboo groove near the house of one Shri Anil Kumar Chakma at Newton village wherein the same was kept concealed after commission of the offence by the appellant, herein. The police had also recovered another gun manufactured by the appellant, herein, and sold to one Hichi Chakma.

On conclusion of the investigation, the I.O. submitted the charge-sheet in the matter on 26.03.2021, against the appellant, herein, under Section 307/326 of the Indian Penal Code. It was stated in the said charge- sheet that a supplementary charge-sheet under the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959, would be submitted on receipt of the FSL report. On submission of the charge-sheet under Section 307/326 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant, herein; the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Changlang, vide order, dated 25.08.2021, proceeded to commit the case to the Court of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Khonsa, along with all case records and materials.

On the matter being committed before the Sessions Court, the learned District & Sessions Judge, Khonsa, proceeded to frame the charge against the appellant, herein, under Section 307/326 of the Indian Penal Code, vide order, dated 14.09.2021.

On receipt of the FSL report with regard to the weapon of offence used by the appellant, herein, to commit the offence, involved in the matter and also on receipt of the prosecution sanction from the competent authority for proceeding against the appellant under the provisions of Section 39 of t