RUBUL SONOWAL Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27 -12 -2002 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Tinsukia in Sessions Case No.122(T)/2001 convicting the appellant u/s 341/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for 5 years with fine of Rs.1000/ -, in default, to undergo further RI for one month for the offence u/s 307/34 IPC, fine of Rs.500/ -, in default, RI for fifteen days for the offence u/s 341/34 IPC and RI for two years with fine of Rs.500/ -, in default, to undergo RI for fifteen days for the offence u/s 25(1)(a) Arms Act, 1959, the sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that one Shri Bhadreswar Sonowal lodged a first information before the Bordubi Police Station on 05 - 04 -1998 alleging that Shri Rubul Sonowal and Shri Raju Sonowal of Laina gaon under PS Bordubi in the district of Tinsukia shot at and injured his son Shri Majid Sonowal by a hand made pistol on 03 -04 -1998 at about 6pm without any reason with the intention to kill him. The bullet injury was on the right side of his navel but he somehow managed to survive. He had to be hospitalized. The said information was treated as FIR and on the basis of the same, Bordubi PS Case No.28/1998 u/s 341/326/307/34 IPC was registered.

(3.) THE police investigated the case and after completion of the investigation, submitted charge -sheet against both the accused persons. The case was registered as G.R. Case No.324/1998 before the criminal Court at Tinsukia. Subsequently, the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial. The learned trial Court framed charge against the two accused persons u/s 341/307/326/34 IPC. The gist of the charge is that the two accused persons on 03 -04 -1998 at about 6pm in furtherance of common intention wrongfully restrained the victim and caused injury to him with such intention and under such circumstances that if by that act they had caused the death of the victim, they would have been guilty of murder.