07.08.2007. However, it is necessary to give a background of the case in brief.

3. The criminal law was set into motion by lodging of an Ejahar by PW3 on 20.08.1999. It was stated that at about 11:00 AM an incident of firing had taken place in the premises of the Urbashi Cinema Hall at Golaghat in which, a young boy of 18 years was killed. The informant however had stated that the gunshot was by an unknown person. Accordingly, investigation was made and on 04.04.2003 the charges were framed against the appellant. On denial of the charge, the trial had begun in which the prosecution had examined 10 nos. of witnesses.

4. Though the case was of 1999, the final outcome was not coming and this fact came to the notice of this Court in a proceeding namely, WP(C)/1175/2006 and accordingly instructions were sought for as the reason for the delay in pendency of this case. Immediately after such intervention by this Court, within a couple of days, an order was passed on 05.04.2006 by the learned Trial Court acquitting the appellant. The said order of acquittal was however taken up for examination by this Court in Criminal Revision (Suo Moto) Case No.74/2007. By emphasizing that the order was not passed in accordance with law, this Court had noticed that by an order of 2 pages, the entire criminal trial was disposed of and except one, none of the witnesses were discussed. This Court had accordingly passed an order dated 07.08.2007 setting aside the earlier judgment dated 05.04.2006 of acquittal and had remanded the matter for a fresh trial. For ready reference, the relevant observation made by this Court is extracted hereinbelow-

“( 23 ) In view of our conclusion that there was gross miscarriage of justice in this case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the judgment under revision and remit the matter back to the Sessions Court at Golaghat for a fresh trial of the accused. The Sessions Court is further directed to frame appropriate charges in the light of this order and on the basis of the material, which is already in existence and on record of the court.”

5. Pursuant to such remand, fresh charges were framed against the appellant on 12.08.2008 in which the number of the pistol involved was correctly written and the trial had started de novo in which the prosecution had adduced evidence through 11 nos. of witnesses to bring home the charges.

6. PW1 is a classmate of the deceased who had accompanied him to the cinema hall to watch the morning show. In his cross-examination, however, he had stated that he did not see who had shot his friend.

7. PW2 is a pan-shop owner, who had his shop in the cinema hall campus. PW 2 was, however, declared hostile. Nonetheless, PW 2, in his cross-examination by the prosecution, had admitted to being a seizure witness regarding the seizure of an empty cartridge from the place of occurrence.

8. PW 3 is the informant, who was in the Booking Counter of the cinema hall. He did not know how the incident had occurred and only heard a sound of firing. He is also a witness to the seizure of an empty cartridge from the place of occurrence and the seizure list was proved by him.

9. PW 4 is the Armourer of the Police Reserve. He had deposed that initially a Browning Pistol bearing No.16120790 with empty cartridge was seized. There was a further seizure of three nos. of Browning Pistols bearing Nos. 16237182, 16236901 and 16236793 and 15 numbers of live cartridges in which ‘2Z OK 97’ were inscribed on the rims. In his cross- examination, PW 4 had, however, deposed that the pistol and the live cartridges and magazine which were issued to the appellant were returned unused.

10. PW 5 is the Reserve Officer who had deposed that on 22.05.1999 the Sub Inspector had seized a 9 mm Browning Pistol bearing No. 16120790 and he is a signatory to the seizure list. Subsequently, on 05.09.1999 the second seizure was made of three pistols and 15 rounds of 9 mm live cartridges which corroborates the evidence of PW 4, the Armourer of the Poli