JUDGMENT Amitava Roy, J. 1. This appeal witnesses a challenge to the judgment and order dated 30.5.91 and 5.6.91 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati in Sessions Case No. 71(K)(G)/84 convicting the Appellant under Section 307, IPC and Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Indian Arms (Amendment) Act, 1983 and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 in default to undergo further imprisonment for a period of 10 days for his conviction under Section 307, IPC, and also to undergo imprisonment for 2 years and pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 in default imprisonment for 10 days under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Indian Arms (Amendment) Act, 1983. By the judgment and order dated 30.5.91 the conviction of the Appellant under the aforementioned provisions of law was recorded and the sentences as above were awarded by the order dated 5.6.91. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently with a direction that the period undergone by the Appellant in jail custody as an under trial prisoner would be set off under Section 428, Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Mr A.K. Bhattacharjee, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr A.K. Das and Mr A.K. Agarwal, Advocate advanced arguments on behalf of the Appellant. The learned Public Prosecutors, Mr D. Goswami and Mr F.A. Laskar, represented the State Respondents. 3. The case of the prosecution as unfolded by the GD Entry No. 1190 dated 19.11.83 of the Panbazar Police Station, Guwahati, is that on the date of occurrence, i.e., 19.11.83 at about 5.35 PM the Appellant made an attempt on the life of Mr Hiteswar Saikia, the then Chief Minister of Assam by attempting to shoot him with a revolver but was over powered by the security personnel at the site and was thereafter produced at the said police station with the loaded revolver. On his production, the Appellant was arrested under Section 41, Code of Criminal Procedure, and after conducting a search on him, a 22 bore revolver loaded with six rounds of .22 bore live ammunition and one chocolate colour woollen hand glove were seized. 4. On his production, the Appellant was arrested under Section 41, Code of Criminal Procedure, and after conducting a search on him, a 22 bore revolver loaded with six rounds of .22 bore live ammunition and one chocolate colour woollen hand glove were seized. 4. This was followed by an FIR lodged by Promod Chandra Das, the Additional Superintendent of Police, Kamrup, Guwahati, on the same date disclosing that at about 5.15 PM on that day when Mr Hiteswar Saikia with his wife, after attending the function at the Rabindra Bhawan, Guwahati, was boarding the car in front of the main entrance gate of the Bhawan, one Tridib Sarma, son of Shri Promode Sarma of Kahilipara, made an attempt on his life with a loaded revolver which he was possessing without any valid document by aiming the same on the fore head of Mr Saikia. It was further stated that Shri Sarma was immediately over powered and help of other police officers on duty in the process of which the informant sustained injuries on the finger of his left hand. Shri Gopal Goswami, District Magistrate, Kamrup and other police officers were stated to have witnessed the occurrence. A request was made to register a case under Section 307, IPC read with Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act for investigation. 5. After receiving the FIR, the Panbazar Police Station registered a Case being Panbazar Police Station Case No 477/83 under Section 307, IPC, read with Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Indian Arms (Amendment) Act, 1983. 6. Investigation followed in course of which several witnesses were interrogated and a number of articles were seized. The revolver and the bullets were also sent for examination by the ballistic expert and eventually a charge sheet was submitted against the Appellant and four others, namely Romen Das, Mukul Bora, Biswajit Baruah @ Bijit and Brojen Saikia. 7. The case being one triable by the Court of Sessions, the same was committed to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati. Thereafter charge was framed against the Appellant under Section 307, IPC, Section 25(1B)(a) and Section 26(1) of the Indian Arms (Amendment) Act, 1983. Charge under Section 115 read with 302, IPC was framed against other four accused persons. All the accused persons pleaded "not guilty" and, therefore, were made to stand trial. Thereafter charge was framed against the Appellant under Section 307, IPC, Section 25(1B)(a) and Section 26(1) of the Indian Arms (Amendment) Act, 1983. Charge under Section 115 read with 302, IPC was framed against other four accused persons. All the accused persons pleaded "not guilty" and, therefore, were made to stand trial. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the Appellant as noticed herein above but acquitted the other four persons. 8. In course of the trial, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses including Doctors, Experts and the Investigating Officers. The evidence of Mr Hiteswar Saikia, P.W.-21 and Smt Hemo Prova Saikia, P.W.-22, was recorded on commission as permitted by the Court. The defence after recording of the statements of the accused persons under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, examined three witnesses. The prosecution proved and exhibited 20 documents and 12 materials exhibits. The defence also proved two documents. 9. To comprehend better the rival arguments, being the appeal Court of facts as well as of law, it would be discreet to have a brief survey of the evidence on record. The witnesses for the prosecution can be conveniently categorized as hereunder. (a) Eye witnesses- P.W.-1 Debendra Nath Bora, P.W.-2 Promod Chandra Das, P.W.-3 Ananta Ram Bhuyan, P.W.-4 Girish Chandra Das, P.W.-5 Tarini Hazarika, P.W.-17 S.K. Agmhotri, P.W.-21 Hiteswar Saikia, P.W.-22 Hemo Prova Saikia, (b) Experts from Forensic Science Laboratory P.W.-9 Anil Kumar Sinha, P.W.-10 Padampani Mahanta, (c) Medical witnesses P.W.-15 Dr Purna Kanta Konwar, P.W.-16 Dr S.P. Thakuria, (d) Seizure witnesses P.W.-1 Debendra Nath Bora, P.W.-4 Girish Chandra Das, P.W.-5 Tarini Hazarika, P.W.-6 Aswini Kumar Sinha, P.W.-7 Imran Ali Choudhury, P.W.-8 Dulal Chandra Pathak, P.W.-11 Profulla Chandra Kalita, P.W.-12 Charu Chandra Kalita, P.W.-19 Banamali Sen, P.W.-20 Abdul Mazid Sarkar, (e) Investigating Officers P.W.-19 Banamali Sen, P.W.-20 Abdul Mazid Sarkar, (f) Other witnesses P.W.-13 Tarun Das, P.W.-18 Jayanta Bhagawati. The witnesses examined on behalf of the defence are- D.W.-1 Smt Bino Sarma, (the mother of the Appellant). D.W.-2 Bipin Chandra Bhuyan, (the teacher of the Appellant at the Assam Engineering College). D.W.-3 Md Abu Hussain, Sub Inspector of Police, Dispur Police Station at the relevant time. 10. The witnesses examined on behalf of the defence are- D.W.-1 Smt Bino Sarma, (the mother of the Appellant). D.W.-2 Bipin Chandra Bhuyan, (the teacher of the Appellant at the Assam Engineering College). D.W.-3 Md Abu Hussain, Sub Inspector of Police, Dispur Police Station at the relevant time. 10. In his evidence, P.W.-1 stated that on the date of the incident, i.e., 19.11.83, he was the Deputy Superintendent of Police (City), Panbazar Division and had made security arrangements in and around the campus of Rabindra Bhawan where a function was scheduled to held for distribution of loan certificates to the unemployed youths under the Prime Minister Composite Loan Scheme to be attended amongst others by the Chief Minister of Assam. He deposed that while he made security arrangements through uniformed police officers, P.W.-4 and 3 who were respectively, the Deputy Superintendent of Police (District Special Branch) and Inspector of Police made such arrangements through the plain clothed personnel. P.W.-2, the Additional Superintendent of Police, Kamrup, was also detailed by the Superintendent of Police (City) to supervise the duties allotted. Mr Hiteswar Saikia, the Chief Minister of Assam, P.W.-21, accompanied by his wife Smt Hemo Prova Saikia, P.W.-22, attended the function which ended at about 4.50/4.55 PM. According to the witness, after some time, the Chief Minister with his wife were seen coming towards the collapsible gate from inside the building. When they reached the car, P.W.-2, Mr Promod Chandra Das, opened the rear left hand side door of the car and the witness at that point of time was standing on his left. Mrs Saikia boarded the car first followed by Mr Saikia. While the witness was engaged in assessing whether the road on the other side was clear, he heard a scream from inside the car and looking back saw the back side of a boy leaning on the door of the car through which the Chief Minister had entered, with his head and hands inside the car. According to the witness, the boy was wearing a full sleeves chocolate colour sweater. P.W.-2 grabbed the boy and pulled him out of the car. When the witness (P.W.-1) tried to catch the left hand of the boy it slipped off his grip as he was wearing a glove. The glove, however, remained in the hand of the witness. According to the witness, the boy was wearing a full sleeves chocolate colour sweater. P.W.-2 grabbed the boy and pulled him out of the car. When the witness (P.W.-1) tried to catch the left hand of the boy it slipped off his grip as he was wearing a glove. The glove, however, remained in the hand of the witness. He further deposed that the Chief Minister was then seen coming out of the car. The muzzle of the revolver then was in the right hand of the boy aiming towards the car at the waist level of the Chief Minister. The witness then positioned himself between the boy and the Chief Minister, and the latter was pushed inside the car where after the door thereof was closed, and Mr Saikia left the Rabindra Bhawan campus. The boy was then over powered by the police officer present there and the revolver was snatched away. The witness deposed to have seen the revolver in the hands of P.W.-4. The witness stated that the revolver was loaded. The boy along with the revolver was sent to the Panbazar Police Station under escort of P.W.-4 and 5. At about 9.00 PM the witness visited the Panbazar Police Station and produced the glove before the Investigating Officer, S1, Banamali Sen for the seizure thereof. According to the witness, he identified the boy to be the Appellant. He, however, stated that he had not seen what had happened inside the car. The witness stated about the seizure of the glove exhibit-1 and also identified the same as material exhibit-1, the sweater, as material exhibit-2 and the revolver, as material exhibit-3. 11. In cross-examination, the witness stated that the security arrangements were as required. He stated that only the Chief Minister's vehicle remained inside the Rabindra Bhawan premises along with the Ring Round security vehicle standing only 12 feet away from the Chief Minister's car. He testified that armed CRPF personnel were posted around the Rabindra Bhawan. There were two gates one at the eastern side and other at the western side and at each gate besides one Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, 2/3 UB constables were deployed. The Chief Minister's car entered through the eastern side together with Ring Round vehicle and was supposed to leave through the western gate. He stated that there was a gathering of about 800 to 900 people on the occasion. The Chief Minister's car entered through the eastern side together with Ring Round vehicle and was supposed to leave through the western gate. He stated that there was a gathering of about 800 to 900 people on the occasion. According to the witness till the function was going on he did not see any young boy moving suspiciously in the campus of the Rabindra Bhawan. He stated that the police personnel in plain clothes had followed the Chief Minister and other Ministers and there were security officials to cover the Chief Minister till he entered the car. According to the witness, P.W.-5 Tarini Hazarika was at the relevant point of time on the right side of the car near the driver's door. The witness was not sure as to whether at the time of the incident the driver had taken his seat or anybody else was present by the side of the driver's seat. But he stated that the moment the door was closed, the car started. The witness stated that when the glove came in his hands, he still did not mark the revolver in the hands of the boy. He admitted that the exhibit-1 seizure list did not mention any time of seizure of the glove. He could not state whether the seizure list was forwarded to the Court while producing the Appellant. He conceded that the exhibit-1 did not disclose any endorsement of the learned Magistrate. 12. P.W.-2, Shri Promod Chandra Das, who at the relevant time was posted as Additional Superintendent of Police, Kamrup, is the informant. He lodged the FIR relating to the incident on the same day at about 6.10 PM. He stated on oath that P.W.-1 was given the charge of security arrangements at Rabindra Bhawan on the date of incident and for the said purpose uniformed armed police, the local DSB personnel and also DSB personnel from the Head Quarters, Kahilipara were detailed both inside and outside of the Rabindra Bhawan. At the end of the function, when the Chief Minister approached the car, the witness opened the rear left side door thereof. Smt Saikia, wife of Shri Hiteswar Saikia boarded the car first followed by Mr Saikia. P.W.-1 Deben Bora escorted Mr Saikia to the car accompanied by other police officers and DSB personnel. At the end of the function, when the Chief Minister approached the car, the witness opened the rear left side door thereof. Smt Saikia, wife of Shri Hiteswar Saikia boarded the car first followed by Mr Saikia. P.W.-1 Deben Bora escorted Mr Saikia to the car accompanied by other police officers and DSB personnel. The witness deposed that as soon as the Chief Minister entered the car, one boy appeared from the midst of other persons waiting near the car and in a twinkle of the eye took out a revolver or pistol with his right hand and aimed at the fore head of the Chief Minister. According to the witness the door of the car was still open and the boy was wearing gloves. He then immediately grabbed the boy from behind with both his hands within his grip. P.W.-2 stated that he then heard hue and cry from inside the car and found the Chief Minister coming out. Shri Deben Bora who was in between the boy and the Chief Minister also tried to apprehend the boy and pushed the Chief Minister inside the car. There was a melee due to push and pull. Many police officers and DSB personnel helped the witness in over powering the boy. One CRPF personnel wanted to shoot but the witness shouted at him asking him not to fire. As soon as Deven Bora pushed the Chief Minister inside the car, it left with the Chief Minister followed by the Ring Round vehicle. According to the witness when the boy was over powered a loaded revolver was found in his hand along with a glove. The police personnel snatched away the revolver and the glove from him. The witness then directed the Sub Inspector of Police Tarini Hazarika to take the Appellant and the revolver under the supervision of Girish Das, DSP, DSB, together with other police personnel to produce the boy before the Panbazar Police Station. The witness stated that immediately after the boy was apprehended, he could ascertain his identity as Tridib Sarma, son of Promode Sarma, by asking the boy himself. According to the witness in the scuffle he sustained injury on the left middle finger for which he was treated afterwards. He further stated that he lodged the FIR (Ext-2) at about 6.00 PM with the Officer In Charge, Panbazar Police Station. According to the witness in the scuffle he sustained injury on the left middle finger for which he was treated afterwards. He further stated that he lodged the FIR (Ext-2) at about 6.00 PM with the Officer In Charge, Panbazar Police Station. He identified the revolver as material exhibit-3 and stated that the revolver seized from the Appellant was a hand made revolver in a loaded condition. 13. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that he had not mentioned in the FIR about a scuffle between the Appellant and the police officers as well as the glove in the hands of the Appellant or that the Chief Minister sustained injuries on his fore head in the said incident. He deposed that after taking possession of the revolver from the Appellant, no receipt was granted to him as the situation and time did not permit. He expressed ignorance as to whether a copy of the seizure list was granted to the Appellant. He admitted that DSB personnel were surrounding the Chief Minister when he came out of the Rabindra Bhawan. He confirmed that the District Magistrate, S.K. Agnihotri and Shri Gopal Goswami were in the group accompanying the Chief Minister. He also stated that he found the driver of the car of the Chief Minister in his seat inside the car when the witness had opened the door for Mr Hiteswar Saikia. According to this witness, the DSB personnel and the members of the reception committee were about 2 to 3 feet away from the door of the car. At that time except the witness and P.W.-1 no other uniformed police officer was present but plain clothed police personnel including Ananta Bhuyan, Girish Das and some DSB personnel were present. Shri Tarini Hazarika, P.W.-5, was also present on the other side of the car near the right rear door. According to the witness, the car of the Chief Minister left with three persons including the driver. He admitted that some persons besides the Appellant were also arrested at the spot. P.W.-2 also admitted that he had handled the revolver at the spot and had revolved the chamber thereof to ascertain the bullets. According to him there were six bullets in the chamber. He comfirmed that the security arrangement at the Rabindra Bhawan was satisfactory without any loophole. The CRPF personnel were behind the Ring Round vehicle for avoiding rush. P.W.-2 also admitted that he had handled the revolver at the spot and had revolved the chamber thereof to ascertain the bullets. According to him there were six bullets in the chamber. He comfirmed that the security arrangement at the Rabindra Bhawan was satisfactory without any loophole. The CRPF personnel were behind the Ring Round vehicle for avoiding rush. This party was a mobile group armed with lathis and rifles. 4 to 5 CRPF personnel and armed personnel were put on the varandah inside the collapsible gate. He admitted that he did not mention in his statement before the Investigating Officer about the glove in the hands of the Appellant at the time of occurrence. He denied the defence suggestion that some CRPF personnel loaded their rifles to fire but the District Magistrate restrained them by shouting and that there was a melee in which young boys and girls started running hither and thither in the process of which the Appellant and other persons were held by the police and when after interrogating the Appellant it was ascertained that he was Tridib Sarma, son of Prabodh Sarma, the then Additional Chief engineer, ASEB who at that time had a stained relationship with the District Magistrate, S.K. Agnihotri the witness was directed to implicate the Appellant in the case. The witness further denied the suggestion that the revolver and the glove were not found in the possession of the Appellant. He also denied the suggestion that the Appellant was falsely implicated in the case, making him a scape goat to cover up the lapse in the security arrangements. 14. P.W.-3, Ananta Ram Bhuyan, stated on oath that on 19.11.83 he was the Inspector of Police attached to DSB. On that day he along with other staff of the Special Branch was detailed for plain clothes security duty at the Rabindra Bhawan. The staff consisted of one Inspector of Police, six Sub-Inspectors of Police, four Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police and three constables. Shri Girish Chandra Das, Deputy Superintendent of Police, DSB, was in charge of the plain clothes security arrangement. At about 5.10 PM after the function was over, the Chief Minister along with his wife and others came out of the hall followed by Shri Promod Das, P.W.-2, Shri Girish Chandra Das, P.W.-4, Shri Deben Bora, P.W.-1 and the Ring Round staff. At about 5.10 PM after the function was over, the Chief Minister along with his wife and others came out of the hall followed by Shri Promod Das, P.W.-2, Shri Girish Chandra Das, P.W.-4, Shri Deben Bora, P.W.-1 and the Ring Round staff. The witness also followed the group from a distance of about 6/7 yards. On reaching the collapsible gate of the building, the witness saw the Chief Minister was pushing a boy from the rear seat of his car through the left hand side door and P.W.-2 had grabbed the boy from behind and was trying to drag him away from the Chief Minister. He stated that he noticed a woollen hand glove and a small arm in the right hand of the boy who was trying to aim the same at the Chief Minister. On seeing, the witness rushed in and held the right hand of the boy and dragged him backward by putting his hands down. According to the witness, the firearm was a small loaded revolver. He then tried to open the grip of the right hand of the boy to take away the revolver and was successful in doing so. He then handed over the revolver to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Shri Girish Chandra Das, P.W.-4, who was standing along with the Sub-Inspector of Police, Shri Tarini Hazarika, nearby. At that point of time he saw a CRPF jawan aiming his rifle towards them and so he shouted at him not to fire. The witness stated that he also heard Shri S.K. Agnihotri, the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, asking the CRPF jawan not to fire. The witness stated that on questioning the boy it transpired that his name was Shri Tridib Sarma, a student of Assam Engineering College. Thereafter, Shri Girish Chandra Das and the Sub-Inspector of Police Shri Tarini Hazarika and a few other armed policemen escorted the boy to the Sadar Police Station in a Jeep. The witness identified the boy in the dock. The witness identified also right hand woollen glove as Ext-1 and the revolver as material Ext-3. He further stated that at the time of the incident the boy was wearing a brown colour full sleeves sweater. 15. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that he neither knew the Appellant from before the incident nor had seen him thereafter. The witness identified also right hand woollen glove as Ext-1 and the revolver as material Ext-3. He further stated that at the time of the incident the boy was wearing a brown colour full sleeves sweater. 15. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that he neither knew the Appellant from before the incident nor had seen him thereafter. He testified that the staff of the Ring Round vehicle took charge of the Chief Minister as soon as he came out of the rostrum and that he was satisfied with the security arrangement made by SB staff. He stated that it was not the duty or responsibility of the plain-clothes security personnel to check and search the invitees and loanees. He admitted that no receipt was granted to the Appellant after taking away the revolver from his possession and that no seizure thereof was made in his presence. He admitted to have said before the Investigating Officer that he caught the right hand of the person to put the revolver down and forced him backward and that he tried to snatch away the revolver but the assailant held the revolver firmly. He admitted to have further stated that Shri Girish Chandra Das and himself succeeded in disarming the assailant and that he handed over the revolver to Sub-Inspector of Police Shri Tarini Hazarika to give the same to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Shri Girish Chandra Das and that he also found a woollen hand glove in the hands of the assailant which was also given to Shri Girish Chandra Das. He admitted of not having said before the police that the Appellant was wearing a brown colour full sleeves sweater at the time of occurrence. He denied the defence suggestion that the Appellant did not possess any revolver or that the witness did not snatch it away from him. He also denied the suggestion that some CRPF personnel tried to open fire and then there was a commotion and as the Appellant ran for safety the police apprehended him. He also denied the suggestion that the Appellant was held unnecessarily as the police had failed to capture the real assailant. 16. P.W.-4, Shri Girish Chandra Das, stated that he was the Deputy Superintendent of Police, (DSB), Guwahati, on the date of the incident. He also denied the suggestion that the Appellant was held unnecessarily as the police had failed to capture the real assailant. 16. P.W.-4, Shri Girish Chandra Das, stated that he was the Deputy Superintendent of Police, (DSB), Guwahati, on the date of the incident. On that day, he, Shri Ananta Bhuyan, P.W.-3 and other members of the security staff numbering about 17 in plain clothes were detailed for duty at the Rabindra Bhawan. Uniformed police personnel were also deployed at the main gate and around the hall and other places. About 10 to 15 minutes after the function was over, the Chief Minister along with his wife came out of the hall. The witness and P.W.-3 followed the Chief Minister whereas P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 were ahead. The plain clothes security staff that came with the Chief Minister also accompanied him. As soon as the Chief Minister went near the car, which was parked near the Bhawan, he saw P.W.-2 opening the rear side door. At that time P.W.-1 was standing by the said of P.W.-2. The wife of the Chief Minister boarded car first and in the meantime, the witness positioned himself near the right hand side of the car. While he was looking towards the opposite direction, he heard some unusual sound inside the car and on coming to the left side of the car he saw P.W.-2 grabbing a boy from behind and trying to separate him from the Chief Minister. He also saw the Inspector Shri Ananta Bhuyan, P.W.-3 holding the right hand of the boy in which the boy was holding a revolver. The witness then held the right hand of the boy and forced it downwards. In the meantime, P.W.-1, took the Chief Minister towards the car and after a while the Chief Minister left the place. The witness along with P.W.-3 and P.W.-5 then tried to take the revolver from the hand of the boy and ultimately P.W.-3 was successful and he handed over it to the witness. He further stated that the revolver was a loaded one. P.W.-3 also handed over the glove used by the boy in his right hand. On enquiry, the boy disclosed his name to be Tridib Sarma, a Student of Assam Engineering College. He further stated that the revolver was a loaded one. P.W.-3 also handed over the glove used by the boy in his right hand. On enquiry, the boy disclosed his name to be Tridib Sarma, a Student of Assam Engineering College. The witness and P.W.-5 then escorted the boy along with CRPF personnel to the Panbazar Police Station and handed him over to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Shri Banamali Sen, along with the revolver and the glove. The revolver and the glove were seized by Ext-3. The witness stated that before the seizure, Sub-Inspector of Police, Shri Banamali Sen, opened the revolver and found that it was loaded with six rounds of cartridges and one of bullets bore mark of the striking pin. The witness identified the revolver and the glove as material Ext-1 and material Ext-3. He also identified the Appellant in the dock. The witness further stated about the seizure of a scooter and a bunch of keys vide Ext-4 and Ext-5. He also identified the scooter and keys as material Ext-4 and Ext-5. 17. In cross-examination, the witness stated that the cartridges taken out from the revolver by the Sub-Inspector ofPolice, Shri Banamali Sen were placed on the table at the Panbazar Police Station and the same remained as such till he was tffere. He expressed ignorance as to where were those sent thereafter. He denied the defence suggestion that in his statement he had stated that he produced the loaded revolver with the right hand glove taken from the hand of the Appellant to the Investigating Officer, Sub-Inspector ofPolice, Shri Banamali Sen and that Shri Ananta Ram Bhuyan, P.W.-3, had given him the glove used by the boy. The witness denied the suggestion that at the close of the function, the CRPF personnel wanted to open fire as a result persons present there ran hither and thither and as the Appellant also tried to run for safety he was caught being found near the car of the ChiefMinister. He denied the suggestion that no revolver either loaded or unloaded was found in the possession of the Appellant. He admitted that the GD entry in the Panbazar Police Station was not made in his presence. He identified the material Ext-6(1) to be the bullet containing firing pin mark. 18. He denied the suggestion that no revolver either loaded or unloaded was found in the possession of the Appellant. He admitted that the GD entry in the Panbazar Police Station was not made in his presence. He identified the material Ext-6(1) to be the bullet containing firing pin mark. 18. Shri Tarini Hazarika who was at the relevant time the Sub-Inspector ofPolice and Officer-in-Charge of the Latasil Police Station and examined as P.W.-5, stated that on 19.11.83 he was detailed for the security duty at the Rabindra Bhawan. P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3 and P.W.-4 was also present on that day in plain clothes. At about 5.00 PM when the function was coming to an end, P.W.-2 asked me to check out the security arrangements at the District Library which the Chief Minister had desired to visit on the same day. Within 10 to 15 minutes, the witness came to Rabindra Bhawan after overseeing the arrangements at the District Library. At that point of time he found that the car of the Chief Minister ready at the porch of the Rabindra Bhawan for departure with the Ring Round vehicle near it. He saw that both the ChiefMinister and his wife had boarded the car. He then proceeded near the car and positioned himself near the driver's seat. When he bowed down and peeped through the window ofthe driver's seat he saw a scuffle between the ChiefMinister and a boy wearing a chocolate colour sweater and that P.W.-2, P.W.-3 and P.W.-4 were trying to drag out the boy. He rushed to the other side of the car to help them. Though he saw a revolver in the hands of the boy he could not say in which hand it was held. According to the witness, P.W.-3 with much endeavour could snatch away the revolver from the boy and handed it over to P.W.-4 who in turn handed over the same to him. P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 asked the witness to take the boy to the Panbazar Police Station along with revolver. P.W.-4 also accompanied him. At Panbazar Police Station he made over the boy to the Sub-Inspector ofPolice, Shri Banamali Sen along with the revolver and a right-hand woollen glove. P.W.-4 gave the glove to him. He stated that the Sub-Inspector ofPolice, Shri Banamali Sen first opened the revolver and then seized the same. P.W.-4 also accompanied him. At Panbazar Police Station he made over the boy to the Sub-Inspector ofPolice, Shri Banamali Sen along with the revolver and a right-hand woollen glove. P.W.-4 gave the glove to him. He stated that the Sub-Inspector ofPolice, Shri Banamali Sen first opened the revolver and then seized the same. The revolver contained of six live cartridges and there was a mark on the rim of one of those bullets. He proved the seizure list Ext-3 by which the revolver, bullets and the right-hand glove were seized. He also identified the woollen glove and the revolver as material Ext-s 1 and 3. The bullet having a mark on the rim was identified as material Ext-6(1). He stated that he had ascertained from the boy that his name was Tridib Sarma, son of Shri Prabodh Sarma. On his return to the place of occurrence he was handed over three keys with a plastic plate by the Sub-Inspector ofPolice, DSB, Rama Goswami. He also stated about the seizure of a scooter found abandoned near Dighali Pukhuripar at the crossing of GNB Road and Tayabulla road. He proved Ext-4, the seizure list of the scooter and Ext-5 the seizure list of the keys. He also identified the seized scooter as material Ext-4. He stated that he prepared a supplementary Case Diary in connection with the seizure of the scooter and the keys and submitted the same to the Investigating Officer. 19. In cross-examination, the witness when confronted with the General Diary of the Latasil Police Outpost for the period from 10.11.83 to 29.11.83 proved the same as Ext-A. He confirmed the GD Entry No. 452 dated 19.11.83 in that register recorded at 6.25 PM pertaining to loss of a revolver with 10 rounds of ammunitions of one Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police (SB) Shri Sonaram Hazarika while he was on duty at Rabindra Bhawan on that day at 5.00 PM. With reference to the said entry, the witness stated that it disclosed that the firearm with magazine had fallen somewhere as one miscreant attacked Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police (SB) Shri Sonaram Hazarika when the Chief Minister was coming out of the Rabindra Bhawan. The said entry was proved by the witness as Ext-A(1). He, however, stated that he received an information later in the night that the arm and ammunitions had been recovered. The said entry was proved by the witness as Ext-A(1). He, however, stated that he received an information later in the night that the arm and ammunitions had been recovered. He admitted that he had not made any attempt either to ascertain or to arrest the miscreant in connection with the said report. He expressed ignorance as to whether the FIR on which the GD Entry was made had been forwarded to the Panbazar Police Station but admitted that no steps were taken at the Out Post to take the statements of Shri Sonaram Hazarika. The witness further proved the GD Entry No. 456 about the attempt on the Chief Minister in the said register as Ext-A(2) recorded on 19.11.83 at 8.35 PM. The witness stated that this was done as per his narration. With reference to the GD Entry, the witness stated that according to his recorded version he had taken away the revolver from the possession of the boy with the help of CRPF personnel and handed it over to the P.W.-4. The fire arm described in the entry was both as revolver and pistol and the entry did not mention about P.W.-3 snatching away the revolver. It also did not disclose that there was a scuffle between the boy and the Chief Minister and that P.W.-1 and 4 had dragged the boy away. The witness stated as soon as he had reached the car, he had found the Chief Minister and his wife already in the car with the driver at the steering wheel. He admitted that the Sub-Inspector of Police, Shri Banamali Sen on being handed over the revolver and the woollen glove, neither granted him nor P.W.-4 any receipt therefor. He also confirmed that no such receipt or copy of the seizure list was handed over to the Appellant in his presence. According to him, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Shri Banamali Sen did not seal, label and sign the arm and the ammunitions in his presence and at the time of leaving the Panbazar Police Station the revolver and the bullets were lying on the table. He stated that Ext-3, the seizure list, did not bear any seal or signature of the Magistrate. He denied the defence suggestion that neither any revolver nor the material Ext-3 was found in the possession of the Appellant while apprehending him at Rabindra Bhawan. He stated that Ext-3, the seizure list, did not bear any seal or signature of the Magistrate. He denied the defence suggestion that neither any revolver nor the material Ext-3 was found in the possession of the Appellant while apprehending him at Rabindra Bhawan. He also denied the suggestion that in course of vigorous attempts made to find out the miscreant who had attacked the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police (SB) Shri Sonaram Hazarika, the CRPF jawans were about to open fire and in the melee that followed, the Appellant ran for safety and was apprehended and that the case has been concocted against him. 20. The P.W.-17, S.K. Agnihotri,was at the relevant point of time, the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup at Guwahati. He stated that on 19.11.83, he attended the function at Rabindra Bhawan which was amongst others attended also by Shri Hiteswar Saikia , the Chief Minister of Assam. He stated that as the Deputy Commissioner of the district, he had to arrange for the security of the VIPs. After the function was over at 'about 5.00 PM, he came out of the rostrum to locate his car but before he could do so, he heard a commotion at the porch of the Rabindra Bhawan and returned there to ascertain the reason. He then saw the Chief Minister and his wife, the security officer and the driver inside the car and some policemen holding a person between the car and the steps of the building and trying to over power him. Out of the police men there was one who was holding a weapon in his hand. On enquiry, the said officer informed the witness that the person being over powered was caught using the weapon for hurting Mr Hiteswar Saikia. The witness then instructed that the Chief Minister be sent off and the person apprehended be taken to the Police Station for interrogation. He admitted that he had not examined the weapon. He proved Ext-17, the sanction order for prosecution of the Appellant. He identified the Appellant in the dock stating that "the gentleman with the beard" in the dock was the one who had been apprehended by the police officer on that day. 21. He admitted that he had not examined the weapon. He proved Ext-17, the sanction order for prosecution of the Appellant. He identified the Appellant in the dock stating that "the gentleman with the beard" in the dock was the one who had been apprehended by the police officer on that day. 21. In cross-examination, the witness stated that he did not personally know the father of the Appellant Shri Promode Sarma and that he did not remember that he had got him arrested with the help of the police for the latter having accused him (the witness) for trespassing into the Kahilipara Power Unit which was then under the jurisdiction and control of Mr Promode Sarma. He expressed ignorance whether Shri Promode Sarma and his wife were brought to the Court of the Executive Magistrate by tying them with rope on 20.11.83. He denied the suggestion that on his specific instruction to the police the Appellant and his parents were tortured and ill treated. 22. P.W.-21, Shri Hiteswar Saikia, examined on commission, stated in his evidence that on 19.11.83, he attended a function at the Rabindra Bhawan. After the function was over at about 5.00 PM, he along with his wife came out of the hall and reached the car. He had to wait for 2 to 3 minutes for his wife as she was lagging behind. After joining him, she boarded the car first and thereafter he stepped into the car and took his seat. Before the door of the car could be closed, one young boy suddenly pounced upon him shouting "Khabardar" (Beware) and placed a pistol or revolver on his fore head with the intention of killing him. The head and the hands of the boy were inside the car but his feet were out side. The witness deposed that sensing danger, he immediately caught hold of the barrel ofthe revolver/pistol and pushed it towards the back window of the car. A tussle followed between him and the boy. At that time a police officer came forward and caught hold of the left hand of the boy and both came out of the car. Immediately thereafter the boy was separated from the witness and he (the witness) was taken back to the car, which thereafter left for his residence. The witness identified the boy sitting before the Commission as Tridib Sarma. Immediately thereafter the boy was separated from the witness and he (the witness) was taken back to the car, which thereafter left for his residence. The witness identified the boy sitting before the Commission as Tridib Sarma. He further stated that he had sustained injuries on the fore head for which he had to call his personal physician, Dr Konwar from the Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh. 23. In cross-examination, he stated that on his way to the car he was escorted by the Additional Superintendent of Police, besides two Assistant Superintendent of Police, namely Mr Das and Mr K.M. Nag. Mr Nag had come with him to the car and had occupied the left front seat of the Car. He also accompanied him to his residence after the incident. According to the witness he had seen the Appellant Tridib Sarma on the date of the incident and thereafter on the date of his examination. He admitted that he had been retaining a photograph of the Appellant, which had come out in a Weekly newspaper. He admitted that he had not been requested by the investigating agency to take part in any TIP. He testified that at the time of the incident he did not see any assailant except the Appellant Tridib Sarma. 24. P.W.-22, Smt Hemoprova Saikia, wife of Shri Hiteswar Saikia, examined on commission, stated in her evidence that on 19.11.83, she had accompanied her husband to a function at Rabindra Bhawan. After the function was over at about 5.00 PM she and her husband came out of the hall. She was few yards behind her husband. She boarded the car first followed by her husband who took his seat by her side. As somebody from outside was going to close the door, suddenly a boy came to the car and throwing the upper portion of his body inside shouted "Khabardar" holding a pistol in his hand. The witness shouted for help and also came out of the car by the right side door and when she reached the rear of the car she found that some police personnel were escorting her husband to the car. She stated that during the scuffle with the boy her husband suffered a scar in his fore head. 25. The witness shouted for help and also came out of the car by the right side door and when she reached the rear of the car she found that some police personnel were escorting her husband to the car. She stated that during the scuffle with the boy her husband suffered a scar in his fore head. 25. In the cross-examination, she admitted of not having stated before the police that the boy was holding a pistol in his hand and had placed it on her husband's fore head. She admitted to have said before the police that the hoy had placed "kiba ata bastu"(something) on her husband's fore head. 26. P.W. -6 and P.W.-8 are essentially the seizure witnesses. Shri Aswini Kumar Sinha, P.W.-6 deposed that on 20.11.83 he was the Inspector of Police attached to Bureau of Investigation on Economic Offences at Guwahati. On that day, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Shri Banamali Sen, seized one full sleevess sweater at Panbazar Police Station in his presence from the body of the Appellant Tridib Sarma vide seizure list, Ext-6, in which Ext-6(1) is his signature. He also identified the sweater as material Ext-2. 27. In cross-examination, he stated that he had interrogated the Appellant for about 4/5 days. Though he had met him several times between 19.11.83 to 27.11.83, he did not enquire from the Appellant about this full-sleevess sweater. He expressed ignorance whether the investigating officer issued any receipt to the Appellant after the seizure of the sweater. He admitted that Ext-6 did not reveal the time of seizure though the date was mentioned therein. He denied the suggestion that no such seizure was made in his presence and that he had signed the material Ext-6 at the instance of Shri Banamali Sen. He also denied that the Appellant was not wearing the full sleeves sweater. 28. Shri Dulal Chandra Pathak, P.W.-8, stated that on 19.11.83, he was attached to the Panbazar Police Station. On that day the investigating officer Shri Banamali Sen issued a written request to him to recover 12 numbers of .22 bore bullets and detonator kept concealed by the Appellant at his residence. On being interrogated by the witness, the Appellant when produced at the Dispur Police Station stated that he had concealed one detonator and 12 number of bullets and that he would be able to lead the police for recovery thereof. On being interrogated by the witness, the Appellant when produced at the Dispur Police Station stated that he had concealed one detonator and 12 number of bullets and that he would be able to lead the police for recovery thereof. The witness recorded the statement of the Appellant, Ext-8 in presence of two witnesses. According to him, the Appellant then led him to his residence at Kahilipara. Before entering the house, the P W-8 and the other witnesses accompanying the party got their body searched. On being shown by the Appellant, the witness then seized 12 number of .22 bore bullets concealed under the Dunlop mattress of his bed and also one detonator from his bookshelf. The witness proved the seizure lists of bullets and the detonator as Ext-s 9 and 10. In Court, the witness identified the packets of bullets material Ext-7. On opening it 11 bullets were found though 12 had been seized. The witness deposed that he filed an ejahar before the Dispur Police Station under the Arms Act and the Explosive Substance Act against the Appellant and after completing the investigation a supplementary dairy was submitted to Mr Banamali Sen, Officer-In-Charge, Panbazar Police Station. The defence declined to cross-examine this witness as on the basis of the FIR filed by him a separate case being GR Case No. 3808/83 (Sessions Case No. 107(K-G)85) was pending in the Court and that the witness was not a charge sheeted witness and no copy of his statement had been supplied to the Appellant. 29. P.W.-9 Shri Anil Kumar Sinha, at the relevant time was the Assistant Director of Ballistic Division of Forensic Science Laboratory, Assam, at Guwahati. He deposed that he had received one paper box enclosed in a paper cover containing the seal and impression of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup Guwahati, vide office memorandum No. 1975(J) dated 28.11.83 in connection with the case. On opening the box for examination on 16.12.83, one hand gun in the shape of a revolver marked by the Chief Judicial Magistrate's office as Ext-A (marked by the laboratory as Ext-1) and six numbers of cartridges marked by the Chief Judicial Magistrate's office as Ext-B (collectively marked in the laboratory as Ext-2, Ext-3, Ext-4, Ext-5, Ext-6 and Ext-7) were found. The witness identified the paper box as material Ext-8 the revolver as material Ext-3 and material Ext-6, Ext-6(1) and Ext-6(2) to be the cartridges. He stated that on examination of the revolver he found it to be manufactured by an unauthorized factory and was serviceable and designed to fire .22 calibre live ammunitions. He further deposed that the revolver had been utilized in firing different types of .22 bore calibre live ammunitions successfully and was effective when fired properly. He testified that the effective range of the revolver when used so as to endanger human life was 15 feet when fired properly and on examination of the barrel swab it could be inferred that the revolver had been used for firing before it was received in the laboratory. With regard to cartridges, he deposed that those were .22 calibre live ammunitions and were found to be manufactured by an authorized factory Ext-5 and Ext-6 (as marked in the laboratory) had been fired successfully by the revolver to show the serviceability of the ammunitions in general which established that all these animations could be fired successfully by the revolver in the condition in which the cartridges were received in the laboratory. According to the witness, the cartridge, Ext-7 (marked in the laboratory) bore a mark on its rim/rim wall which when examined and compared with the firing pin impression of the test fired cartridge cases of the revolver under the leitz comparison microscope revealed that the mark on the head of the said cartridge was the firing pin mark of the revolver. He, however, added that the mark was not the firing pin impression of the revolver in its normal process of firing as transpired from the test and examinations performed in the Ballistic Division of the laboratory. The witness proved the report as Ext-11. 30. In cross-examination, the witness stated that he had not been asked to ascertain the reason or cause as to why the cartridge with the pin mark was not fired. According to him, firing pin mark may be caused due to very many reasons, i.e., while loading and unloading of cartridges or even accidentally by any human agency. The witness stated that if there is a safety catch in the fire arm it is preferable to send the loaded weapon to the laboratory in the condition in which it was seized. The witness stated that if there is a safety catch in the fire arm it is preferable to send the loaded weapon to the laboratory in the condition in which it was seized. But if in the firearm in question there is no safety catch or that it is not possible to send the loaded fire arm, it is preferable that the investigating agency make a note of the position of the cartridges in the chamber and then unload them and send the same for examination. The witness explained "normal process of firing as loading, cocking and pulling of the trigger in which the firing pin strikes the head of the cartridge case (Primer). He stated that during the examination he had fired the revolver for 23 cartridges successfully. He deposed that had the trigger been pulled properly the cartridge would have been fired. 31. P.W.-10, Padmapani Mahanta, who at the relevant time was the Senior Scientific Officer, Ballistic Division of Forensic Laboratory, Guwahati, stated that on 22.12.83 he received one small carton containing twelve .22 KF cartridges and detonator with a small safety fuse vide Memo No. 2112-J of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup of the same date in connection with the case. On opening the carton, the cartridges were marked as Ext-A and the detonator as Ext-B. The witness deposed that on examination of the cartridges those were found to be live ones. The detonator with the safety fuse was also found to be serviceable. The witness proved his report as Ext-13. the defence declined to cross-examine this witness on the ground that a separate case being GR Case No. 3808/83 (Sessions Case No. 107(K-G)85) was pending in the same Court in connection with the recovery of cartridges and detonator and such cross-examination would be prejudicial to the defence of the Appellant. 32. Shri Munindra Narayan Bora, P.W.-14 who at the relevant time was the Scientific Officer, Questioned Documents Division of Forensic Laboratory, Kamrup, Guwahati, stated that his Laboratory received the questioned documents involved in the case on 9.2.84. He identified the questioned writings in "Q series" and marked them as Q1 to Q44. Similarly, standard writings were identified in "S series" and were marked as S1 to S6. He identified the questioned writings in "Q series" and marked them as Q1 to Q44. Similarly, standard writings were identified in "S series" and were marked as S1 to S6. After examination of the documents he submitted his opinion on 15.2.84 addressed to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, to the effect that the person who wrote S1 to S6 also had written in Assamese, the words and figures, Ql to Q 16, Q24 and Q26 to Q52. He proved the diary as material Ext-9 containing the questioned writings, Q series and material Ext-10, the specimen and writings as S series. He proved his report as Ext-16. The defence declined to cross examine this witness. 33. The medical witnesses have been examined as P.W.-15 and P.W.-16. Dr Purna Kanta Konwar, P.W.-15, stated in his deposition that he was the personal physician of Mr Hiteswar Saikia and had accompanied him to America for transplantation of his kidney. He stated that after return from America, he used to treat him in case of any infection or injury. He stated that on 22.11.83, he was the Assistant Professor of Medicine, Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh, and came down from Dibrugarh on receiving the information that Mr Hiteswar Saikia had been attacked and that he might have received injuries on his person. He stated that he examined Mr Hiteswar Saikia on 22.11.83 at about 7.30 AM at his official residence at Dispur and found one lacerated wound with abrasion on the fore head 1 2 x 1 1/4? skin deep on the right side and tailing to the left. According to him, the age of the wound was about 48 hours and the injury was simple in nature caused probably by a blunt weapon. 34. In cross-examination, he stated the he had not received any police requisition for the medical examination of Mr Hiteswar Saikia. He admitted that the age of the injury as 48 hours as mentioned in the report was to be calculated backwards from 22.11.83,7.30 AM and, therefore, the same might have been caused by 7.30 AM of 20.11.83. He, however, added that the duration of 48 hours was not very specific and could differ by +-4/6 hours. He admitted that the age of the injury as 48 hours as mentioned in the report was to be calculated backwards from 22.11.83,7.30 AM and, therefore, the same might have been caused by 7.30 AM of 20.11.83. He, however, added that the duration of 48 hours was not very specific and could differ by +-4/6 hours. While admitting that such injuries could be caused by striking the door of a car, the witness admitted that he had issued injury report on the request of Mr Hiteswar Saikia and that the police had never contacted him in connection therewith. He expressed ignorance as to how the injury report issued by him found its way to the hands of the police. 35. P.W.-16, Dr S.P. Thakuria, stated in his deposition that on 19.11.83 while he was the Resident Surgeon, Department of Surgery, Guwahati Medical College, he had examined one P.C. Das and observed the following injuries. (1) Tenderness over the middle finger with swelling, (2) Small abrasion over dorsal aspect of the proximal phallanx of the middle finger 1/8 x 1/8. He stated that he examined the injured on police request and that the injuries were caused by blunt weapon and were simple in nature. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that he did not have any document to show that he had examined the injured on police requisition. He conceded that the age of the wound was not mentioned in the report. 36. P.W.-7, TA Choudhury, who at the relevant time was the Transport Officer (Pool) at Dispur, deposed that on 14.11.83, he had allotted the Pool Car bearing registration No. AMK 9240 to Mr Hiteswar Saikia and that the car was returned on 5.12.83 and was seized by the police vide Ext-7 on 6.12.83. In cross-examination, the witness stated that Shri Probin Chandra Rabha, was the allotted driver of the said car who remained with Mr Hiteswar Saikia till 5.12.83. 37. P.W.-11, Profulla Chandra Kalita, was the neighbour of Promode Sarma. He stated that on 19.11.83 at about 8.00 PM, the police visited the house of Mr Sarma and he was asked to be a witness of search of the house by showing threat. The police then entered the house with the Appellant and entered the room where he used to reside. The witness, however, waited in the adjacent room. He stated that on 19.11.83 at about 8.00 PM, the police visited the house of Mr Sarma and he was asked to be a witness of search of the house by showing threat. The police then entered the house with the Appellant and entered the room where he used to reside. The witness, however, waited in the adjacent room. After about 15/20 minutes, the witness was called by the police inside the room where he was shown some bullet like things on the reading table along with another apparatus, which the police described as detonator. The articles were alleged to be found in the room after the search. A seizure list was prepared of those articles and on being asked to put his signature thereon, he did so after the contents thereof were read over to him. He proved the seizure list as Ext-9 and Ext-10. The defence declined to cross-examine this witness on the ground that a separate case being GR Case No. 3808/83 (Sessions Case No. 107(K-G)85) was pending in the same Court in connection with the recovery of cartridges and detonator and such cross-examination would be prejudicial to the defence of the Appellant. 38. P.W.-12, Shri Charu Chandra Kalita who was the Chowkidar ofthe deaf and dumb school stated that on 19.11.83 in the night he went to the house of Promode Sarma on being called by the police. After some time, the police called him showing him some articles on the table, which he could not identify or recognize. The police then prepared some paper and asked the witness to put his signature thereon. He stated that he did not know English and could not say what was written in those papers. He, however, proved Ext-9 and Ext-10 as the said documents and Ext-9(3) and Ext-10(3) as his signatures. This witness was also not cross-examined by the defence on the same ground. 39. P.W.-13, Tarun Das at the relevant time was the Manager of Rupalim Hotel at Ganeshguri. In his evidence he deposed that the police examined him and when asked about Mukul and Ramen, he replied that he did not know them. 40. Jayanta Bhagawati who at the relevant time was posted as Extension Officer, District Industries and Commerce Centre, Kamrup, was examined as P.W.-18. He stated that on that day he was on duty at the Rabindra Bhawan in connection with the departmental function. 40. Jayanta Bhagawati who at the relevant time was posted as Extension Officer, District Industries and Commerce Centre, Kamrup, was examined as P.W.-18. He stated that on that day he was on duty at the Rabindra Bhawan in connection with the departmental function. The function was attended by the then Chief Minister, Shri Hiteswar Saikia. After the function was over, the witness came out of the hall and found several youths gathered in front thereof in the open space. Amongst them he met one Bhaity and enquired of him about his health. The witness thereafter moved towards the area where refreshment was being served. He then heard a commotion and was told that somebody had attempted to kill the Chief Minister. He ran towards the crowd and saw from a distance that the police in a jeep was taking a boy away. The witness could not recognize the boy and came to know in the next morning from the newspaper that in connection with the case, police had arrested Tridib Sarma. In cross-examination, he stated that Bhaity was also known as Tridib Sarma. According to him, on the date of the incident Tridib was wearing a grey half sleeves sweater and full sleeves shirt. He, however, could not recollect the colour of the shirt. 41. P.W.-19, Shri Banamali Sen, had initiated the investigation in the case. He stated that on 19.11.83, he was posted as the Second Officer of the Panbazar Police Station. At about 5.30 PM on that day, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Tarini Hazarika of Latasil Police Out Post along with CRPF personnel produced the Appellant Tridib Sarma, son of Promode Sarma along with a loaded .22 Bore revolver and informed that the Appellant had tried to kill Mr Hiteswar Saikia, the Chief Minister of Assam, with that revolver. The witness then arrested the Appellant and seized the revolver loaded with bullets. He also made entry No. 1190 of 19.11.83 in the GD Register of the Police Station, which he proved as Ext-18. The witness also proved the seizure list of the revolver and the bullets as Ext-3. He identified the revolver and the live cartridges as material Ext-3 and material Ext-6, respectively. He also identified the chocolate colour glove as material Ext-1, which according to him was seized by the seizure list Ext-3. The witness also proved the seizure list of the revolver and the bullets as Ext-3. He identified the revolver and the live cartridges as material Ext-3 and material Ext-6, respectively. He also identified the chocolate colour glove as material Ext-1, which according to him was seized by the seizure list Ext-3. The witness stated that later on, the FIR Ext-2 was received from Shri Promode Chandra Das, Additional superintendent of Police, Guwahati. He deposed that he seized one left hand chocolate colour woollen glove vide seizure list Ext-1, being produced by Shri Deben Bora, Deputy Superintendent of Police(city). He identified the glove as material Ext-11. He instructed the Sub-Inspector of Police, Shri Tarini Hazarika to take certain steps in the investigation and submit a supplementary Case Diary. Accordingly, Shri Hazarika seized one scooter and keys vide Ext-4 and Ext-5 and submitted the supplementary Case Diary. The witness also proved the sketch map of the place of occurrence prepared by him as Ext-19. He stated that he also collected the injury report and subsequent thereto on the direction to hand over the Case Diary and investigation to Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID, Shri AM Sarkar, he did so. He maintained that he examined the witnesses Shri Deben Bora, P.W.-1, Shri Tarini Hazarika, P.W.-5 and Shri P.C. Das, P.W.-2. He stated that he seized the sweater from the Appellant vide the seizure list Ext-6 on 27.11.83. He identified the sweater as material Ext-2. 42. In cross-examination, he stated that the revolver along with the live cartridges were seized at the time of arrest of the accused. He admitted that the FIR was received at about 6.10 PM and that he did not mention either in the GD Entry or the Case Diary about the wearing apparel of the Appellant. He also admitted to have opened the revolver whereupon he found that there were six bullets in it. He confirmed that there was a striking mark in one of the bullets. He stated that the sweater was seized from the Appellant while he was in the police custody at Mugafirm at Dispur. He, however, could not confirm whether the material Ext-2 was the seized sweater or not. According to him, the seized revolver and the bullets were kept in police malkhana after making a note in the register. He expressed ignorance as to when those were sent to the Court. He, however, could not confirm whether the material Ext-2 was the seized sweater or not. According to him, the seized revolver and the bullets were kept in police malkhana after making a note in the register. He expressed ignorance as to when those were sent to the Court. He stated that after handing over the investigation to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, he assisted the investigating agency by seizing the sweater on the request of the new Investigating Officer. He claimed to have given a copy of the seizure list of the sweater to the Appellant. He admitted to have sent the seized articles to malkhana without sealing the same. He also admitted that neither the seizure list nor the seized weapon was sent to the Court on the next day. He denied the suggestion that no loaded revolver or glove was seized from the Appellant. He also denied the suggestion that the CRPF personnel wanted to open fire when the pistol with ammunitions were snatched away from the policeman and then the accused came near to the Chief Minister's car to protect himself. He also denied the suggestion that the sweater, material exhibit was not seized in presence of P.W.-6. He stated that P.W.-1, Deben Bora, had not stated before him that the boy was wearing a full sleevess chocolate colour sweater and that the glove was a woollen chocolate colour one. He confirmed that P.W.-1, Deben Bora, stated before him that he had seen a revolver in the right hand of the Appellant but did not say about holding of the muzzle thereof by the right hand. He also stated that P.W.-5, Tarini Hazarika did not state before him that he saw a scuffle between the boy and the Chief Minister. 43. The Second Investigating Officer who completed the investigation is P.W.-20, Abdul Mazid Sarka. He deposed that on 22.11.83, he was the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID, Guwahati. As ordered by the DIG, CID, he took up the investigation of the case from P.W.-19, Banamali Sen. He recorded the statement of the witnesses and on 27.11.83 asked P.W.-19 to seize the sweater. He stated that the seized cartridges and the revolver were sent to the Forensic Laboratory from the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup on 28.11.83. He identified the seized revolver and the cartridges as material Ext-3 and material Ext-6. He recorded the statement of the witnesses and on 27.11.83 asked P.W.-19 to seize the sweater. He stated that the seized cartridges and the revolver were sent to the Forensic Laboratory from the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup on 28.11.83. He identified the seized revolver and the cartridges as material Ext-3 and material Ext-6. He proved the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory as Ext-11. He also stated about the seizure of the certificate of registration of the scooter No. AM A1390 and also proved seizure list Ext-7 pertaining to the Ambassador Car No. AMK 9240. After obtaining sanction from the District Magistrate for trial of the accused persons under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Indian Arms (Amendment) Act, 1983, he submitted charge sheet against the accused persons including the Appellant. 44. In cross-examination, he stated that the Ballistic experts were requested to examine as to whether the revolver was fired recently and whether the striking mark on the bullet was that of the firing pin of the revolver. He stated that no test identification of the Appellant and the seized revolver and the cartridges was held, as it was considered not necessary. He admitted that the seizure lists Ext-3 and Ext-6 were not produced before the Court but were sent along with the charge sheet. According to him, the seized revolver and the live cartridges were produced before the Court only on 28.11.83 to be forwarded to the Forensic Laboratory but not before that. He disclosed that he did not place any requisition to a Government Doctor to examine Mr Hiteswar Saikia. He expressed ignorance that on the date of the incident one revolver and 10 ammunitions were snatched away from a police officer at Rabindra Bhawan. He admitted that he did not consult the GD Entry of Latasil Police Station. He deposed that P.W.-3 had stated before him that he had handed over the revolver to P.W.-5, Tarini Hazarika. He further stated that he tried to disarm the boy by snatching away the revolver and that he and P.W.-4 were successful in doing so. According to the witness, P.W.-3 did not state before him that he raised his head and found P.W.-2 still grabbing the boy from his back. P.W.-3 also did not state before him that the boy was trying to point the firearm towards the Chief Minister. According to the witness, P.W.-3 did not state before him that he raised his head and found P.W.-2 still grabbing the boy from his back. P.W.-3 also did not state before him that the boy was trying to point the firearm towards the Chief Minister. He stated that P.W.-4 stated before him that he produced the loaded revolver and the right hand glove and the Appellant to the Investigating Officer (P.W.-19, Banamali Sen) and that he did not state that P.W.-3 had given the glove to him (P.W.-4). 45. To complete the narration of the evidence on record, the testimony of the defence witnesses also needs to be scripted. Smt Bino Sarma, D.W.-1, the mother of the Appellant, in her deposition stated that the Appellant had a consistent good academic career. After passing his PU(Sc) Examination from the cotton college, Guwahati, in the First Division, he joined the Assam Engineering College, Guwahati, and obtained Bachelor of Engineering Degree in the year, 1989 also with First Class. He pursued studies while in jail and on his release appeared in the BA Examination in private and passed the same. He was known to be an amiable and well behaved boy to his teachers and friends and there was never any occasion to complain against his conduct. She stated that the Appellant was presently doing business. In reexamination the witness further deposed that in connection with the case she and her husband were arrested and were produced in the Court in handcuffs and tied with rope. 46. D.W.-2, Bipin Chandra Bhuyan, the Appellant's teacher in Assam Engineering College, stated that as a student he was brilliant and as a hosteller his conduct was beyond reproach. 47. D.W.-3, Abdul Hussain, stated that on 19.11.83, he was the Sub-Inspector of Police of the Dispur Police Station. He proved Ext-B, the GD register of the said Police Station for the period from 5.11.83 to 24.11.83. He also proved Ext-B(1), the GD Entry No. 504, dated 19.11.83 which mentioned that the house of the Appellant was searched. The witness also proved Ext-B(3), GD Entry No. 592, dated 21.11.83 mentioning that Promode Sarma and Bino Sarma had been forwarded to Court. 48. In his examination under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, the Appellant admitted that he was present at the Rabindra Bhawan at the relevant time. The witness also proved Ext-B(3), GD Entry No. 592, dated 21.11.83 mentioning that Promode Sarma and Bino Sarma had been forwarded to Court. 48. In his examination under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, the Appellant admitted that he was present at the Rabindra Bhawan at the relevant time. He denied that at that time he was wearing the sweater, the material Ext-2, the gloves, material Ext-1 and Ext-11. He also denied that the material Ext-1, the glove was taken away from his hand by P.W.-1. He denied the seizure of the sweater on 27.11.83 while he was wearing the same. He further asserted that no copy of any seizure list of the sweater was handed over to him. He, however, stated that his signature was taken on a blank paper. He denied of having placed the revolver, material Ext-3 on the fore head of Mr Hiteswar Saikia, P.W.-21 and that he tried to kill him. He also denied that the revolver, material Ext-3, was found in his right hand. He, however, expressed ignorance as to whether at the relevant time the same was loaded with live cartridges. He denied that there was a scuffle between him and Mr Hiteswar Saikia and that P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3 and other police officers over powered him and snatched away the revolver and the glove, material Ext-1. He expressed ignorance as to whether the revolver was a hand made one and was serviceable and that the materia] Ext-6 were live bullets with a pin mark on one of such bullets. He denied that the revolver and the bullets Hlonged to him and were in his possession. He denied that he assaulted Mr Hiteswar Saikia for which Mr Saikia sustained hurt. He denied that P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-21 and others have identified him to be the person who tried to kill P W-21 with the revolver. He denied that after the incident he was taken to the Panbazar Police Station along with the glove, material Ext-1 and the revolver, material Ext-3, which was loaded with bullets, material Ext-6, by P Ws, Tarini nHazarika and Girish Das. He further stated that he had been falsely implicated in the case. His version is that on 19.11.83 he attended the function at Rabindra Bhawan, on the request of a loanee friend. After the function was over at around 5.15 PM/5.20 PM, he came out of the hall. He further stated that he had been falsely implicated in the case. His version is that on 19.11.83 he attended the function at Rabindra Bhawan, on the request of a loanee friend. After the function was over at around 5.15 PM/5.20 PM, he came out of the hall. At that point of time there was commotion and hue and cry. Some of the CRPF personnel wanted to open fire. Finding one VIP car parked nearby, he went to take shelter near it. Thereafter, he and some other boys were arrested and brought to the Panbazar Police Station. He stated that on that day, he was wearing a half grey sweater and full sleeves shirt. A full sleeves sweater was given to him from his home but the same was later on taken away from him by the police and his signature was obtained on apiece of blank paper. He stated that while in jail he came to know that a pistol was snatched away from the possession of a police officer at Rabindra Bhawan on that day for which the commotion had taken place. 49. Mr Bhattacharjee has assiduously argued that the case in hand provides a classic example of false implication of an innocent person to cover up the omissions and lapses of the police administration in high profile cases. The learned Counsel contended that the prosecution case as projected is inherently improbable and is liable to be rejected out right. According to him, the evidence both oral and documentary adduced by the prosecution being faulty and discrepant in all material particulars the charges levelled against the Appellant had not at all been proved, not to say of being proved beyond reasonable doubts and, therefore, his conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside. The investigation conducted in the case being fraught with gross illegalities and vitiated by partisan approach, the prosecution case is wholly unworthy of credit and, therefore, the learned Court below ought not to have convicted the Appellant. 50. The learned senior Counsel, as the first step towards exposing the weakness of the prosecution case dealt with the FIR. The investigation conducted in the case being fraught with gross illegalities and vitiated by partisan approach, the prosecution case is wholly unworthy of credit and, therefore, the learned Court below ought not to have convicted the Appellant. 50. The learned senior Counsel, as the first step towards exposing the weakness of the prosecution case dealt with the FIR. He argued that in the present case the document, Ext-2 could not be accepted to be the FIR, inasmuch as, admittedly before the same was lodged, the GD Entry, Ext-18, relating to the alleged incident had been recorded and on the basis thereof the investigation had started. Referring to the said document, the learned senior Counsel appointed out that there were glaring omissions therein rendering the case of the prosecution wholly unacceptable. The FIR did not disclose that there was a scuffle between the Appellant and the police officers trying to over power him and that the revolver had been snatched away from him. He further pointed out that the FIR did not mention about the glove in the hand of the Appellant or his dress including the sweater worn by him. It also did not mention about the injury on the fore head of Mr Hiteswar Saikia. 51. Mr Bhattacharjee further submitted that the prosecution had departed in course of the trial from its version portrayed in the FIR, inasmuch as, though it was represented in Ext-2 that while Mr Hiteswar Saikia was in the process of boarding the car an attempt was made by the Appellant to kill him with a revolver by putting it on his fore head and the Appellant was immediately over powered and taken into custody with the revolver with the help of other police officers, it was sought to be established in the trial that the incident had occurred after Mr Hiteswar Saikia had boarded the car and that P.W.-3 with the assistance of others snatched away the revolver from the Appellant and that thereafter he was overpowered and taken into custody. This departure, according to Bhattacharjee, is fatal casting serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case. 52. Mr Bhattacharjee next discarded the prosecution version that the revolver, material Ext-3, was found in the possession of the Appellant and snatched away from him in course of his attempt on Mr Hiteswar Saikia. This departure, according to Bhattacharjee, is fatal casting serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case. 52. Mr Bhattacharjee next discarded the prosecution version that the revolver, material Ext-3, was found in the possession of the Appellant and snatched away from him in course of his attempt on Mr Hiteswar Saikia. Referring to the evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5, P.W.-17, P.W.-21, and P.W.-22, the learned senior Counsel urged that there were apparent discrepancies not only with regard to the identity of the fire arm but also with regard to the possession and handling thereof rendering the testimony in support of the prosecution case a suspect. According to him, no such revolver was found in the possession of the Appellant and, therefore, the question of retrieving the same from him at the place of occurrence did not arise. He contended that the theory of the revolver must have been introduced subsequently, inasmuch as, at no point of time either a receipt or a copy of the seizure list had been granted to the Appellant for the seizure thereof. This omission on the part of the investigating agency besides being in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 51 and 52, Code of Criminal Procedure, and Rule 158 of the Assam Police Manual, Part-V, leads to the irreversible conclusion that the Appellant did not possess the revolver, material Ext-3, at the time of the alleged incident and that there was thus no occasion to seize the same from his possession. It was further pointed out that the revolver both before and after the alleged seizure was not preserved in the manner as required by law as the evidence on record disclosed that it was freely handled by P.W.-2, P.W.-5 and P.W.-19 even before its seizure though under the law the same ought not to have been done before being despatched for forensic examination. Mr Bhattacharjee was particularly critical about the action of P.W.-19, Shri Banamali Sen, in opening the revolver before seizing it to verify as to whether it was loaded or not. He maintained that the Investigating Officer without meddling with the revolver, ought to have labelled and sealed the same for the purpose of being sent for forensic examination. Mr Bhattacharjee was particularly critical about the action of P.W.-19, Shri Banamali Sen, in opening the revolver before seizing it to verify as to whether it was loaded or not. He maintained that the Investigating Officer without meddling with the revolver, ought to have labelled and sealed the same for the purpose of being sent for forensic examination. Questioning the identity of the revolver, Mr Bhattacharjee, contended that it was not produced before Mr Hiteswar Saikia, P.W.-21 and his wife, P.W.-22 who in the circumstances were the best persons for the purpose and this omission has gone without any explanation. The learned senior Counsel pointed out that the admission of the Investigating Officer, P W-19 that the seized articles were sent to Malkhana without sealing the same was in gross violation of Rule 166 of the Assam Police Manual, Part-V. He further argued that the evidence on record established that neither the revolver, material Ext-3 nor the seizure list, Ext-3 were produced before the magistrate during the period of investigation and, in fact, the revolver with six bullets were sent to the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, only on 28.11.83 for sending the same for forensic examination. The procedure laid down in Rule 173 of the Assam Police Manual, Part-V, for packing and despatching the revolver and the bullets were also not complied with. All these, according to the learned senior Counsel, have rendered the alleged seizure of the revolver from the Appellant highly doubtful and in view of the lapses on the part of the investigating agency in sealing and labelling the fire arm and the bullets in accordance with law, the identity of the material Ext-3 and the bullets, material Ext-6 is open to serious doubt. 53. Mr Bhattacharjee also sought to dismiss the prosecution story of seizure of the glove from the Appellant contending, inter alia, that the very theory of the Appellant using the glove on the date of the incident was inherently improbable, inasmuch as, in view of the stringent security arrangement, it would have impossible for the Appellant to move around wearing gloves. On the other hand, assuming that the Appellant was not wearing the gloves before and had worn those immediately before the incident while preparing to assault, he would have been promptly apprehended by the security personnel in view of his unusual conduct. On the other hand, assuming that the Appellant was not wearing the gloves before and had worn those immediately before the incident while preparing to assault, he would have been promptly apprehended by the security personnel in view of his unusual conduct. The learned senior Counsel also reiterated out the omission about the glove(s) in the FIR or in the statements of P.W.-2 before the police. He maintained that the omission on the part of P.W.-1 to hand over the left hand glove alleged to have been removed from the hand of the Appellant in course of the scuffle, to the police party escorting the Appellant to the police station makes the version of the glove highly suspicious. Referring to the material Ext-1 and Ext-11, Mr Bhattacharjee contended that in fact, no right hand glove was exhibited at the trial and the left hand glove was identified as material Ext-1 as well as Ext-11. He further urged that the story of recovery of glove(s) from the Appellant was not acceptable also in view of the omission about the reference thereof in the GD entry No. 1190 dated 19.11.83, Ext-18, in the main text thereof which was in vernacular. The version relating to the glove was highly doubtful also in view of the omission on the part of P.W.-5, P.W.-21, Mr Hiteswar Saikia and P.W.-22, Ms Hemo Prova Saikia to state about the same before the Investigating Officer. The learned Counsel further urged that the seizure of the glove(s) should not be taken note of as no receipt therefore was issued to the Appellant in contravention of Section 51, Code of Criminal Procedure and Rule 155 of the Assam Police Manual, Part-V. 54. With regard to the chocolate colour sweater alleged to have been worn by the Appellant at the time of incident, introduced as a mark of his identification, the learned senior Counsel argued that the witnesses on this point P.W.-1, P.W.-3, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6 were inconsistent with regard to colour of the same. According to Mr Bhattacharjee, the theory of the sweater also falls on the ground on account of omission of P.W.-2, P.W.-4, P.W.-21 and P.W.-22 to state about the same before the Investigating Officer. According to Mr Bhattacharjee, the theory of the sweater also falls on the ground on account of omission of P.W.-2, P.W.-4, P.W.-21 and P.W.-22 to state about the same before the Investigating Officer. Apart from the fact that there was no mention about the chocolate colour sweater in the FIR no receipt for the seizure thereof was issued to the Appellant as required under Section 51, Code of Criminal Procedure and Rule 158 of the Assam Police Manual, Part-V. Further no entry of such seizure was made in the GD Register of the concerned police station. These assume importance in view of the categorical statements made by the Appellant under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, that his signature was taken on a blank paper. 55. It was next contended on behalf of the Appellant that the prosecution had totally failed to establish the identification of the so-called assailant. Admittedly, no identification parade was held to confirm the identity of the alleged offender. The Investigating Officer had provided no explanation for such omission. The fact that P.W.-21, Mr Hiteswar Saikia was carrying a photograph of the Appellant with him after the incident( as disclosed in his evidence) is a clear pointer to the fact that without the photograph it was not possible for him to implicate the Appellant as his assailant. Further as no identification parade of the seized articles including the weapon of assault had been conducted, it was not safe to associate those with the alleged incident for the purpose of conviction of the Appellant more particularly when most of the witnesses identifying those at the trial had to concede that they would be unable to separate them if mixed up with similar types of articles. 56. Mr Bhattacharjee next argued that the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses P.W.-4, P.W.-5, P.W.-19 and P.W.-20 with regard to the firing pin mark detected on one of the bullets, in support of the prosecution case that the Appellant had attempted on the life of Mr Hiteswar Saikia albeit unsuccessfully is demolished by the evidence of the Forensic expert, P.W.-9. Mr Bhattacharjee next argued that the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses P.W.-4, P.W.-5, P.W.-19 and P.W.-20 with regard to the firing pin mark detected on one of the bullets, in support of the prosecution case that the Appellant had attempted on the life of Mr Hiteswar Saikia albeit unsuccessfully is demolished by the evidence of the Forensic expert, P.W.-9. Referring to the evidence on record to the effect that the revolver with the bullets in it was freely handled by the police witnesses and the chamber thereof was opened, he argued that it was quite possible in the process that the pin mark found in one of the bullets had been caused by such careless handling of the fire arm. In absence of any explanation as to why the chamber of the revolver had to be opened and handled without taking necessary care and caution and in view of the omission on the part of the investigating agency, to pack and seal the same immediately after the seizure to be forwarded to the Court, the existence of the pin mark by itself was not a conclusive evidence that it was caused due to the pulling of the trigger by the Appellant. The learned senior Counsel referred to the evidence of the Forensic expert, P.W.-9, opining that the mark appearing on one of the bullets though that of the firing pin of the revolver, material Ext-3, was not the firing pin impression thereof in its normal process of firing. It was thus contended that as the reason why the said cartridge did not fire was neither disclosed by the expert nor asked to be ascertained by the investigating agency the mere existence of such mark on the unfired cartridge could not be taken to be an unimpeachable evidence for holding that it was caused by pulling of the trigger by the Appellant. This was more so, it was argued, because from the evidence on record it was clear that such pin mark could occur due to many other reasons like loading and unloading of cartridges even without pulling the trigger. It was even suggested on behalf of the defence that it was not unlikely that the pin mark was created by interested quarters only to reinforce the prosecution case. 57. It was even suggested on behalf of the defence that it was not unlikely that the pin mark was created by interested quarters only to reinforce the prosecution case. 57. Mr Bhattacharjee braced his arguments highlighting next the illegalities committed by the investigating agency in conducting the investigation of the case. According to him, the investigation was led in complete violation of the mandatory provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Assam Police Manual, Part-V, more particularly, Section 51,Code of Criminal Procedure,and Rules 52, 53, 158 and 166 of the Assam Police Manual, Part-V. Elaborating his arguments on this facet, Mr Bhattacharjee contended that die material witnesses for the prosecution were examined very late without providing any explanation therefor. Though P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-5 were examined on the date of the incident all other witnesses were examined much thereafter. Moreover, the fact regarding examination of the witnesses P.W.-15, P.W.-17, P.W.-18, P.W.-20, P.W.-21 and P.W.-22 was not recorded in the GD Register of Panbazar Police Station as required under Rule 53 of the Assam Police Manual, Part-V. The revolver, material Ext-3, besides being handled freely by all concerned, the same along with the bullets, glove and the sweater were not sealed, signed and labelled by the Investigating Officer and no identification marks put on them as required under Section166 of the Assam Police Manual, Part-V. The revolver and the bullets were sent to the Forensic Laboratory after long delay of 10 days. This was also in violation of Sections 173 and 174 of the Assam Police Manual, Part-V, he argued. No seizure list of the revolver, glove and sweater was issued to the Appellant in violation of Section 51, Code of Criminal Procedure and Rule 158 of the Manual. The Investigating Officer also omitted to record in the GD Register of the Panbazar Police Station about the full sleeves chocolate colour sweater. Apart from the fact that no identification parade was conducted to spot the accused persons and the articles seized in connection with the case, no independent witness was also examined though the incident, according to the prosecution had occurred in public gaze. It was further argued that the investigation was only an eye wash with a pre-determined mind to hook the Appellant on extraneous considerations. 58. It was further argued that the investigation was only an eye wash with a pre-determined mind to hook the Appellant on extraneous considerations. 58. Mr Bhattacharjee, further under lined that the prosecution case was highly improbable and lacked credence in view of the tight security arrangements made. In presence of the police and other security personnel at all strategic points it was absurd that a young boy with a loaded revolver could have sneaked through such a tight security cordon and reach the Chief Minister of the State and have all the time to wear gloves and then attempt on him with a revolver on his fore head. The prosecution version according to defence is further rendered untrustworthy in view of the GD Entry Ext-A(1) the I atasil Police Out Post that on the same date and rime of the incident some miscreants had attacked ASI, Shri Sonaram Hazarika and the said police officer had lost his service pistol with 10 number of ammunitions. It was argued that the conspicuous silence on the part of the prosecution about the steps taken for investigating such a serious matter raises doubt about the credibility of the prosecution case and fortifies the contention that the Appellant was framed up by interested persons malafide. The fact that the investigating agency had omitted to ascertain from the Forensic expert the reason why the cartridge bearing the pin mark had not fired also makes the prosecution case doubtful, inasmuch as, it cannot be ruled out that the expert opinion on such enquiry, would have belied the charges levelled against the Appellant. It was, therefore, strongly urged that the prosecution case is liable to be rejected as inherently improbable and false. 59. The senior Counsel mounted a scathing attack on the charge under Section 307, IPC, against the Appellant. He maintained that for the offence of attempt to murder, both ACTUS REUS, i.e., the act complained of and MENS REA intention or guilty knowledge have to co-exist. Both these ingredients being the essential features of the offence alleged, the prosecution to succeed has to prove that the Appellant being armed with the loaded revolver had approached the P.W.-21 with the intention of murdering him and that with that intention had fired the revolver at him though unsuccessfully. Criminal intention coupled with the overt act to execute the intention were therefore the indispensable elements of the offence. Criminal intention coupled with the overt act to execute the intention were therefore the indispensable elements of the offence. The learned senior Counsel argued that the evidence, however, falls short of the said requirements. He argued that none of the prosecution witnesses including Mr Hiteswar Saikia had stated in his evidence that the Appellant had pulled the trigger of the revolver to activate the fire arm or that any one of them had heard the clicking sound produced by the pulling of the trigger at the relevant time. The implicating evidence against the Appellant is that he placed a loaded revolver on the fore head of Mr Hiteswar Saikia cautioning him by uttering the words "Khabardar" (Beware) and in the scuffle caused minor injury on the fore head of P.W.-21. It not being the case of the prosecution that the revolver was attempted to be fired by the Appellant or that the Appellant had pulled the trigger but the revolver did not fire, it being defective, Mr Bhattacherjee argued that the theory of last proximate act was attracted and the Appellant in any view of the matter could not be held to be guilty of an offence to commit murder. 60. While dwelling on this feature of the prosecution case, Mr Bhattacharjee reiterated that the presence of the firing pin mark on one of the cartridges did not decisively establish that it had been caused due to the pulling of the trigger by the Appellant. Referring to the evidence of the ballistic expert, it was contended that the presence of the fire pin mark on one of the cartridges could be due to various reasons and that having regard to the expert opinion that the firing pin impression was not caused in the normal process of firing it was amply evident that in the instant case it was not caused by pulling of the trigger by the Appellant. He further argued that had the Appellant the intention of killing P.W.-21, he would not have given up his attempt so easily with the time and opportunity he had at his disposal. The evidence of the prosecution even if accepted, according to the learned senior Counsel, could at best prove that the Appellant had made an attempt to caution and scare Mr Hiteswar Saikia with a view to highlight the demands of the on going students' movement, he being a supporter thereof. The evidence of the prosecution even if accepted, according to the learned senior Counsel, could at best prove that the Appellant had made an attempt to caution and scare Mr Hiteswar Saikia with a view to highlight the demands of the on going students' movement, he being a supporter thereof. He even went to the extent of arguing that the prosecution had failed to prove the offence under Section 323, IPC, as well and that on a dispassionate evaluation of evidence on record and having regard to the blatant breach of the mandatory provisions of law on various fronts, the Appellant is entitled to be acquitted. In any case, when two views are possible, Mr Bhattacharjee argued that the one in favour of the accused ought to be accepted and thus the benefit of doubt should go to the Appellant. 61. Winding up his arguments, the learned senior Counsel, further argued that the defence in the case in hand has also put forward a plausible plea which if accepted has a demolishing effect on the prosecution case. The defence version finds support from the evidence of P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 which discloses that at the relevant time the CRPF personnel attempted to open fire. The GD Entry, Ext-A(1) relating to loss of service pistol and ammunitions of ASI, Shri Sonaram Hazarika and the conspicuous silence of the prosecution about the steps taken in connection with such a serious incident taken together with prosecution evidence makes the defence case acceptable. According to him the inexplicable indifference of the concerned authorities in getting the incident of loss of service pistol and ammunitions of a police officer duly investigated on one hand and the unusual zeal on the other in presenting the Appellant as the culprit exposes the lack of bonafide of the investigating agency and the prosecution being launched with an oblique purpose the conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside. Mr Bhattacharjee, contended that the learned Court below failed to appreciate the above vital aspects of the case and, therefore, wrongly recorded the conviction and sentence of the Appellant. In support of his submission Mr Bhattacharjee placed reliance on the following authorities. Ram Kumar Panda v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1975 SC 1026 , ChandMal v. State of Rajasthan (1976) 1 SCC 621 , Devi Lal and Anr. In support of his submission Mr Bhattacharjee placed reliance on the following authorities. Ram Kumar Panda v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1975 SC 1026 , ChandMal v. State of Rajasthan (1976) 1 SCC 621 , Devi Lal and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1971 SC 1444 , H.N. Rishbud and Anr. v. State of Delhi AIR 1955 SC 196 , State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mubarak Ali AIR 1959 SC 707 , Maha Singh v. State of Delhi Administration (1976) 1 SCC 644 , Laxmipat Chorasia and Ors. v. State of Maharastra AIR 1968 SC 938 , State of Maharastra v. Sukhdeo Singh and Anr. AIR 1992 SC 2100 , Budhsen and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1970 SC 1321 , Harnath Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1970 SC 1619 , Rameswar Singh v. State Jammu and Kashmir AIR 1972 SC 102 , Kaliram v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1973 2 SCC 808 , M.G. Gehani v. State of Maharastra AIR 1982 SC 839 , Sahdeo Gossin v. The King Emperon AIR 1944 Fedrel Court 38, State of Delhi v. V.C. Sukla and Anr. AIR 1980 SC 1382 , R.K. Dey v. State of Orissa AIR 1977 SC 170 , S.R. Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 637 , N. Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab (1976) 1 SCC 750 , Datar Singh v. State of Punjab 4 SCC 272, K.K. Singh and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1968 SC 1402 , H. Harnam Singh v. State of Delhi 2 SCC 819, Ishwar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1976 SC 2423 , Pattad Amarappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka1989 Cri.L.J. 2167 (SC), Bhanda Garm v. State of Assam 1984 Cri.L.J. 217, Ram Narayan Singh v. State of Punjab (1975) 4 SCC 497 , Kulwant Singh v. State of Rajasthan : (1995) 4 SCC 545 , State of Rajasthan v. Daulatram AIR 1980 SC 1314 , Madan Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1978 SC 1511 , Halu v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1974 SC 1936 , Purushuttam and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1980 SC 1873 , Amar Singh and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1980 SC 1873 , Amar Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab AIR 1987 SC 826 , Mahender Singh v. State AIR 1953 SC 415 , Tahsildar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1959 SC 1012 , Sukhram v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1989) Supp. (1) SCC 214, Bhajan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1977 SC 674 , Ram Das v. State of Maharastra 1977 Cri.L.J. 955 (SC), Jamuna Choudhury v. State of Bihar (1974) 3 SCC 774 , Mahmood v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1976) 1 SCC 542 , B. Swion v. State of Orissa AIR 1971 SC 804 , Atmamuddin v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1974 SC 1901 , G.B. Patel v. State of Maharastra AIR 1979 SC 135 , Subhas and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1976) 3 SCC 629 . State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Swamp and Anr. (1974) 4 SCC 764 , Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab AIR 1954 SC 621 , M. Singh and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1981 SC 1579 , Surat Lal and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1982 SC 1224 , Raghunath v. State of Haiyuna (2003) 1 SCC 398 , Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1961 SC 1782 , Awashesh Mahla and Ors. v. State of Bihar 1976 Cri.L.J. 1275 Smt Basava Kom D Pateil v. State of Mysore and Anr. AIR 1977 SC 1749 , M/s Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1965 SC 1039 , Naba Kumar Das v. State of West Bengal AIR 1974 SC 777 , Bahadur Singh v. State of M.P. and Ors. (2002) 1 SCC 606 , Kadurgoth Alavi v. State of Kerala 1982 Cri.L.J. 94. Rehandrashekar v. Inspector of Police, Salem and Ors. 2003 Cri.L.J. 294, B. Rangnathan v. State and Ors. 2003 Cri.L.J. 2779, Keshav Nilkanth Joglekar v. Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay AIR 1957 SC 28 , Gora v. State of West Bengal AIR 1975 SC 473 , GopalMandal v. State of West Bengal AIR 1975 SC 1807 , Darshan Kumar v. Secretary, Municipality Corporation, Jabalpur and Ors. 2003 Cri.L.J. 294, B. Rangnathan v. State and Ors. 2003 Cri.L.J. 2779, Keshav Nilkanth Joglekar v. Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay AIR 1957 SC 28 , Gora v. State of West Bengal AIR 1975 SC 473 , GopalMandal v. State of West Bengal AIR 1975 SC 1807 , Darshan Kumar v. Secretary, Municipality Corporation, Jabalpur and Ors. AIR 1973 SC 906 , Arvind Mohan Singh v. A.K. Biswas AIR 1974 SC 1818 , Jugal Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar AIR 1972 SC 2522 , R. Pandey v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1974 SC 35 , Masurullah v. State of Tamilnadu AIR 1983 SC 654 , Musa Khan and Ors. v. State of Maharastra AIR 1976 SC 2566 and Daulat Ram v. State of Haryana AIR 1972 SC 2434 . The following authoritative text were also relied upon by the defence. 1) Identification of Firearm and Forensic Ballistics by Major Sir, Gerald Burrard under the heading of the "Striker Identification". 2) Gradwhols Legal Medicine - Third Edition Edited by Late Francis E. Camps under the heading "Effects of Cycle of fire upon cartridge components ". 62. As against this exhaustive and elaborate submissions on behalf of the defence, it was argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that the impugned judgment and order is based on a correct appreciation of evidence and the law and is, therefore, not liable to be interfered with. The evidence of eye witnesses, P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-22 as well as the victim P.W.-21 conclusively proved the charge against the Appellant. It was argued that the witness P.W.-1 to P.W.-5 had apprehended the Appellant at the place of occurrence while trying to perpetrate the crime and, therefore, there cannot be any speck of doubt with regard to his involvement in the offence. The eye witnesses having conclusively proved the offending act of the Appellant and the recovery of the loaded revolver from him, his identification and participation in the crime has been established. The inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as sought to be highlighted by the defence are wholly insignificant and did not in any way affect the edifice of the prosecution case. The inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as sought to be highlighted by the defence are wholly insignificant and did not in any way affect the edifice of the prosecution case. Rejecting the submission that the Appellant had been falsely implicated in the case it was contended that the so-called defects in the investigation as sought to be outlined by the defence did not have any bearing on the veracity of the prosecution case. It was contended that the identification of the Appellant as the offender and the recovery of the firearm, sweater and the glove(s) from him rendered holding of TIP unnecessary. Asserting that the conviction and sentence of the Appellant is perfectly justified, it was argued, that had it been the intention of the Appellant only to threaten the Chief Minister he would not have ventured to place a loaded revolver on his fore head. This is according to the learned Public Prosecutor; clearly exhibited the criminal intention of the Appellant and having regard to the materials on record his conviction and sentence cannot be faulted with. In support of the above submissions, the following decisions were relied upon AIR 1996 SC 1395 and AIR 1996 SC 3035 . 63. The points for determination which consequently surface from the materials on record and the rival contentions can be paraphrased as under- (1) Whether the prosecution case is inherently improbable in the fact of the impenetrable security arrangements on the date of the incident? (2) Whether the Appellant has been falsely implicated due to the strained relationship between his father and P.W.-17, SK Agnihotri, the then Deputy commissioner, Kamrup as well as to cover up the lapses on the part of the security personnel detailed for the security and safety of Mr Hiteswar Saikia? (3) Whether the incident as portrayed by the prosecution had actually occurred ? If yes, whether the identity of the Appellant as the assailant has been established? (4) Whether there was any seizure of the weapon of assault, namely, the revolver, the glove(s) and the sweater from the possession of the Appellant? If yes, whether the same is valid in law and can be acted upon as acceptable pieces of evidence in support of the prosecution case? (5) Whether the seized revolver, the glove (s), the sweater have been identified to be those seized from the possession of the Appellant? If yes, whether the same is valid in law and can be acted upon as acceptable pieces of evidence in support of the prosecution case? (5) Whether the seized revolver, the glove (s), the sweater have been identified to be those seized from the possession of the Appellant? (6) Whether the firing pin mark on one of the bullets claim to be seized with the revolver signifying that the revolver was fired unsuccessfully by the Appellant in course of the incident? (7) Whether the investigation of the case is vitiated by gross illegalities rendering the evidence collected in course thereof wholly inadmissible in law entitling the Appellant to acquittal? (8) Whether the materials on record taken at their face value furnish the necessary ingredients of offence under Section 307, IPC? (9) Whether the defence version is plausible enough to demolish the prosecution case and deserves to be accepted? 64. Before venturing to answer the questions posed hereinabove one has to recall the defence version put forward in course of the cross-examination of the witnesses and reiterated by the Appellant in his statements under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the defence, the Appellant on the date of the incident was present at the function at Rabindra Bhawan as a friend of one of the loanees. After the function was over some miscreants attacked ASI, Sonaram Hazarika who was on duty at the spot, as a result whereof his service pistol and ammunitions fell down. In search of the miscreants a commotion followed in which the persons present scurried for cover. To control the situation, the CRPF personnel prepared to open fire. In the bewildered state of mind and out of instinctive reflexes he strayed near the car of the Chief Minister and being located within the protective cordon of Mr Hiteswar Saikia was apprehended by the security personnel. According to defence this was construed to be a serious security lapse and the incident was exploited to implicate the Appellant by framing up a false case against him on the dictates of higher authorities because of the earlier strained relationship between his father and the then Deputy Commissioner of the district, P.W.-17. According to defence this was construed to be a serious security lapse and the incident was exploited to implicate the Appellant by framing up a false case against him on the dictates of higher authorities because of the earlier strained relationship between his father and the then Deputy Commissioner of the district, P.W.-17. In juxtaposition, the prosecution case is that the Appellant with the intention of murdering Mr Hiteswar Saikia bypassed the security net by concealing the revolver under his clothes and when after the function, the Chief Minister had boarded the car, made an attempt to kill him by placing the revolver on his fore head. However, as the revolver did not fire Mr Saikia had a providential escape. 65. The defence has, therefore, admitted the presence of the Appellant at Robindra Bhawan on the date and time of the incident. His arrest from near the car of the Chief Minister by the policemen present is also admitted. It is in this background that the competing arguments would have to be weighed. 66. Before entering into the thick of the controversy, it would be convenient to clear the deck by disposing of some fringe features of the defence argument. It has been contended and rightly so that Ext-2 cannot be considered to be the FIR in the instant case. This was lodged by P.W.-2 with the Officer-In-Charge, Panbazar Police Station, at 6.10.PM as deposed by the Investigating Officer, P.W.-19. Admittedly before that the GD Entry being No. 1190, dated 19.11.83 was made relating to the incident at 5.35 PM in the same Police Station. The said entry reveals that P.W.-5 Shri Tarini Hazarika who at the relevant time was the Incharge of Latasil Police Out Post accompanied by CRPF personnel and P.W.-4 had produced the Appellant at the Police Station together with a revolver with six rounds of ammunitions with the information that the Appellant on that day had attempted to murder Mr Hiteswar Saikia, the then Chief Minister of Assam, with the said revolver. The entry further discloses that the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station on production of the Appellant arrested him under Section 41, Code of Criminal Procedure, conducted a body search of the Appellant and seized the revolver with the ammunitions and one chocolate colour woolen right hand glove. This document, therefore, evinces that acting on the said information, the investigation thereon had been initiated. This document, therefore, evinces that acting on the said information, the investigation thereon had been initiated. Consequently, the document, Ext-2, having been submitted at 6.10. PM after the commencement of the investigation cannot be accepted to be one furnishing the information about the incident first in point of time. The said document, therefore, can be used only for the limited purposes envisaged under Section 162, Code of Criminal Procedure. 67. It has been assiduously endeavoured on the part of the defence to discredit the prosecution case by highlighting some omissions in Ext-2 qua the evidence introduced at the trial. The defence has sought to question the prosecution case on the count that there has been material omissions in the FIR, Ext-2, so much so, that the version therein is in serious conflict with the case which was sought to be established at the trial. Apart from the fact that the document, Ext-2, could not be said to be one conveying the information with regard to the offence earliest in point of time in the face of the GD Entry, Ext-18 it is also liable to be discarded as the prosecution deviated therefrom in course of the trial. It was contended that the Ext-2 did not mention about the scuffle between the Appellant and the police or the injury on the fore head of Shri Hiteswar Saikia. It also did not refer to the glove(s) or sweater worn by the Appellant or allege that the revolver was snatched away from his hand. Though Ext-2 discloses that the Appellant was over powered and taken into custody with the revolver, at the trial it was sought to be proved that he was over powered and after the revolver was retrieved, he was taken into custody. According to the defence, the omissions in the FIR and the above deviations at the trial cut at the root of the prosecution case. 68. The Apex Court in HN Rishbud and Anr. According to the defence, the omissions in the FIR and the above deviations at the trial cut at the root of the prosecution case. 68. The Apex Court in HN Rishbud and Anr. (supra) relied upon by Mr Bhattacharjee has held: Thus, under the Code investigation consists generally of the following steps: (1) Proceeding to the spot, (2) Ascertainment of the facts and circumstances of the case, (3) Discovery and arrest of the suspected offender, (4) Collection of evidence relating to the commission of the offence which may consist of (a) the examination of various persons (including the accused) and the reduction of their statements into writing, if the officer thinks fit, (b) the search of places or seizure of things considered necessary for the investigation and to be produced at the trial, and (5) Formation of opinion as to whether on the material collected there is a case to place the accused before a Magistrate for trial and if so taking the necessary steps for the same by the filing of a charge-sheet under Section 173. 69. While reiterating the above view, the Apex Court in State of M.P. v. Mubarak Ali (supra) held that an investigation under the Code includes all proceedings thereunder for collection of evidence, conducted by the police officer or other persons other than a Magistrate who is authorized by the Magistrate in this behalf. 70. Where a complaint was made against the Appellant in Maha Singh (supra) to the Anti Corruption Inspector, Delhi, and the same was recorded and the Inspector with a view to take action against the offender visited the locality questioned the accused, searched his person and made seizures, it was held by the Apex Court that it amounted to investigation under the Code. 71. From the actions taken by the Investigating Officer on the production of the Appellant with the loaded revolver, the investigation in the case had started as is evident from the authorities on the point referred to above. The document, Ext-2, therefore, cannot be considered to be the FIR. 72. Be that as it may, as the document could still be utilized by the defence for the limited purpose of questioning the prosecution case by drawing out contradiction on the basis of the omissions therein, the arguments with regard to the omissions and deviations as noted hereinabove merit consideration. 72. Be that as it may, as the document could still be utilized by the defence for the limited purpose of questioning the prosecution case by drawing out contradiction on the basis of the omissions therein, the arguments with regard to the omissions and deviations as noted hereinabove merit consideration. To drive home the point on effect of omissions in the FIR, the defence, inter alia, has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Ram Kumar Panda (supra). In that case, in the FIR, there was no mention that the Appellant had stabbed Harbinder Singh, the deceased. It was held that such an omission was vital affecting the veracity of the prosecution case. In that context it was ruled that though an FIR is a previous statement and could be used to corroborate or contradict the maker thereof, omission of important facts affecting the probabilities of the case relevant under Section 11of the Evidence Act in judging the veracity of the prosecution case. 73. In Chandmal and Anr. (supra) in which the Appellant was convicted under Section 302, IPC, for murdering Musstt Nazarbai, the prosecution, case, inter alia, was that the Appellant was last seen together with the deceased. In the FIR that was filed there was no mention of the presence of the Appellant at the residence of the deceased as was sought to be established at the trial. As there was no explanation with regard to such omission, it was held that this aspect of the prosecution story was subsequently developed. This decision as it appears turns on its own facts. 74. What, therefore, follows is that omission of material facts in the FIR, in a given set of facts affecting the probabilities of the prosecution case may render it untrustworthy. However, while judging the consequence of such omissions, the nature thereof and their impact on the prosecution case has to be determined. If the substance of the prosecution case inspite of the omissions discloses the commission of an offence and can be salvaged, it should not be discarded. 75. While it was held in State of U.P. v. Nahar Singh and Ors. If the substance of the prosecution case inspite of the omissions discloses the commission of an offence and can be salvaged, it should not be discarded. 75. While it was held in State of U.P. v. Nahar Singh and Ors. AIR 1988 SC 1328 that the purpose of recording FIR under Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure, is to set the investigating agency in motion for prosecuting persons responsible for the cognizable offence mentioned in the FIR it was observed that though the FIR should not be too sketchy or vague, non-mentioning of details and meticulous particulars is not a ground to reject the prosecution case. 76. The law on the subject is succinctly laid down by the Apex Court in a very recent decision rendered in Superintendent of Police, CBI and Ors. v. Tapan Kumar Singh. (2003) 6 SCC 175 . The relevant portion is extracted hereinbelow: It is well settled that a first information report is not an encyclopaedia, which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. An informant may lodge a report about the commission of an offence though he may not know the name of the victim or his assailant. He may not even know how the occurrence took place. A first informant need not necessarily be an eyewitness so as to be able to disclose in great detail all aspects of the offence committed. What is of significance is that the information given must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and the information so lodged must provide a basis for the police officer to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence. At this stage it is enough if the police officer on the basis of the information given suspects the commission of a cognizable offence, and not that he must be convinced or satisfied that a cognizable offence has been committed. If he has reasons to suspect, on the basis of information received, that a cognizable offence may have been committed, he is bound to record the information and conduct an investigation. At this stage it is also not necessary for him to satisfy himself about the truthfulness of the information. It is only after a complete investigation that he may be able to report on the truthfulness or otherwise of the information. At this stage it is also not necessary for him to satisfy himself about the truthfulness of the information. It is only after a complete investigation that he may be able to report on the truthfulness or otherwise of the information. Similarly, even if the information does not furnish all the details he must find out those details in the course of investigation and collect all the necessary evidence. The information given disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence only sets in motion the investigative machinery, with a view to collect all necessary evidence, and thereafter to take action in accordance with law. The true test is whether the information furnished provides a reason to suspect the commission of an offence, which the police officer concerned is empowered under Section 156 of the Code to investigate. If it does, he has no option but to record the information and proceed to investigate the case either himself or depute any other competent officer to conduct the investigation. The question as to whether the report is true, whether it discloses full details regarding the manner of occurrence, whether the accused is named, and whether there is sufficient evidence to support the allegations are all manners which are alien to the consideration of the question whether the report discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. Even if the information does not give full details regarding these matters, the investigating officer is not absolved of his duty to investigate the case and discover the true facts, if he can. 77. The purpose of lodging an FIR, therefore, is essentially to convey the information about the commission of an offence in order to set the investigating agency in motion. The information must contain the required facts in the bare minimum to apprise the investigating agency about the commission of a crime. Only the cardinal features of the incident are necessary to be set out. The informant is not required to narrate the evidence and other particulars in support of the proof of the offence complained of. The omission, if any, would, however, assume importance if the story portrayed in the FIR is wholly incompatible with the evidence at the trial. Only the cardinal features of the incident are necessary to be set out. The informant is not required to narrate the evidence and other particulars in support of the proof of the offence complained of. The omission, if any, would, however, assume importance if the story portrayed in the FIR is wholly incompatible with the evidence at the trial. So long as the substance of the FIR communicates the information about the commission of an offence with reasonable clarity, any omission with regard to the details of the incident which would be necessary to establish the guilt of the offender at the trial would not render the prosecution case a suspect. The document, Ext-2, narrates the incident of 19.11.93 with the time and place of occurrence thereof. The victim and the assailant have been named. It further sets out that the Appellant was apprehended at the spot with the loaded revolver in his possession. This document, therefore, satisfies the basic requirements of law with regard to the first information as contemplated under Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure. 78. Refering to the deviations, two broad features have been highlighted. Firstly, Ext-2 mentions that the attempt was made when Mr Hiteswar Saikia was just boarding the car whereas the evidence at the trial indicates that it was after he had boarded the car and the door was about to be closed. Secondly, whereas in Ext-2 it is mentioned that the Appellant was over powered and taken in custody with the revolver, the prosecution witnesses at the trial had testified that the revolver was snatched away from his possession after he was over powered and that thereafter he was produced before the Panbazar Police Station along with the firearm. 79. Do these in fact constitute deviations having regard to the manner in which the alleged offence was attempted to be committed but foiled? P.W.-2 who is the author of Ext-2 claims himself to be eye witness along with the others, namely P.W.-1, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5, P.W.-17, P.W.-21 and P.W.-22. Description of an event by a person essentially depends on the capacity of his observation and power of expression. P.W.-2 who is the author of Ext-2 claims himself to be eye witness along with the others, namely P.W.-1, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5, P.W.-17, P.W.-21 and P.W.-22. Description of an event by a person essentially depends on the capacity of his observation and power of expression. Whereas some in view of their sharp faculties and power of observation can immaculately narrate an incident observed by them with flawless description of the sequence of events, other lacking in such qualities may fail to present the same incident in an equally orderly and convincing manner. This is more so if the different stages of the incident occur in quick succession almost overlapping each other, blurring the memory of the witness about the correct order in which the events had taken place. If the description provided contains the essential characteristics of the incident, then minor inconsistencies here and there would not render the same incredible. If there are two inconsistent versions of the same incident, the Court has to ascertain whether coexistence thereof is possible, the differences notwithstanding. In other words, the versions must not be mutually destructive of each other so much so that if one is accepted other has to be essentially rejected. On the other hand, if the two versions can be reconciled irrespective of the departures and the nucleus of the incident described is decipherable, deviations, if any, would be inconsequential. 80. In the case in hand, the prosecution asserts that while Mr Hiteswar Saikia was about to close the left hand rear door of the car after boarding it, the Appellant threw himself inside the case and placed a loaded revolver on his fore head whereupon the police personnel present at the spot over powered him and snatched away the revolver from his hand. On a comparison of the information lodged with the police through Ext-2 and the evidence of the eye witnesses at the trial, the deviations do not appear to be so material so as to demolish the prosecution case as a whole. The deviations high lighted by the defence are very marginal and could have occurred due to difference in the degree of capacity of observation and expression of the persons concerned. The substratum of the prosecution case is not affected thereby. The contentions in this regard, therefore, in view are of no avail to the defence. 81. The deviations high lighted by the defence are very marginal and could have occurred due to difference in the degree of capacity of observation and expression of the persons concerned. The substratum of the prosecution case is not affected thereby. The contentions in this regard, therefore, in view are of no avail to the defence. 81. In the decision of the Apex Court in Devi Lal and Anr. (supra) relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Appellant, the prosecution case was that one Brijlal and Nathu had come armed with guns to throw a challenge to Motaram and his sons. The fact that Nathu had fired his gun was, however, disbelieved by the Court. While dealing with the contention of the Appellants that the core of the prosecution case having been disbelieved a new case could not have been reconstructed in the manner suggested by the High Court it was held that in a criminal trial it is of prime importance that the accused knows the prosecution case. If the pivot of the prosecution case is not accepted a new case cannot be made out to imperil defence, it observed. 82. It is, however, not the case here. As held above, the minor discrepancies in Ext-2, vis-a-vis, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses do not fatally affect the prosecution case. The above proposition of law though unquestionable is of no assistance to the defence in the present setting of facts. Point Nos. 1 and 2 83. Having regard to the overwhelming security arrangements made befitting the occasion keeping in mind the high dignitaries who were supposed to attend the same, the incident if true is an unique instance of a daring feat by any standards and beyond ones comprehension with the security cordon as suggested by the oral evidence of the witnesses who were incharge of such arrangements, supported by the sketch map of the place of occurrence, Ext-19, the prosecution case, may at the first blush, appear to be highly improbable. The evidence on record discloses that on that day there was a gathering of about 800/900 people. No evidence has been led to the effect that all the visitors were frisked before permitting their entry into the hall or its compound. It is rather in the evidence that the uniformed security personnel did not check the belongings of the invitees on that day. No evidence has been led to the effect that all the visitors were frisked before permitting their entry into the hall or its compound. It is rather in the evidence that the uniformed security personnel did not check the belongings of the invitees on that day. In view of the substantial gathering it was not unlikely that the security men could have missed to notice the movement or individual acts of each one present. The incident as alleged had occurred in the month of November and, therefore, it was not unusual having regard to the climatic condition prevailing in this part of the country for one to wear warm clothes. There is no evidence that the Appellant was located moving about with glove(s) in hand(s). No evidence is forth coming about his movement immediately before the alleged incident. The prosecution story, therefore, to start with even if appears to be highly improbable cannot be necessarily discarded as wholly impossible. 84. On the aspect of false implication of the Appellant, it is noticeable that except some suggestions to some of the witnesses, the defence has not put forward any evidence in support of the said plea. To be categorical, it was suggested to P.W.-2, P.W.-3 and P.W.-21 that as the police had failed to apprehend the real assailant, in order to cover up its lapse and to appease the Chief Minister, the Appellant was presented as the accused. A suggestion, however, was made to P.W.-17 that the Appellant and his parents were tortured and ill treated by the police on his specific instructions. The materials on record, in my view, do not lay an acceptable foundation to uphold the defence plea in this regard. The points under consideration are hence answered in the negative. Point Nos. 3, 5 and 9. 85. These are the key issues in the case and the adjudication thereof would involve evaluation of the evidence on record in the touchstone of the judicially evolved principles pertaining to the burden of the prosecution in a criminal trial. It would thus be discreet as well as profitable to refer to the authorities pressed into service before embarking upon the exercise of analyzing the materials available. 86. It would thus be discreet as well as profitable to refer to the authorities pressed into service before embarking upon the exercise of analyzing the materials available. 86. In R.K. Dey (supra), the Apex Court reiterated the three cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence, namely (1) that the onus lies on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that it cannot derive any benefit from the weakness or falsity of the defence version while proving its case; (2) In a criminal trial the accused must be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved to be guilty; (3) The onus of the prosecution never shifts. It further recalled the fundamental principle that so far as the accused is concerned, it would be sufficient if he is able to prove his case by the standard of preponderance of probabilities. The same view was reiterated in Kaliram (Supra) as well as State of U.P. v. Ram Swarup and Anr. (supra) underlining that unless the prosecution discharges its burden, the Court cannot record a finding of guilt against the accused. The above decision was reinforced in Datar Singh (supra) by observing further that some suspicion or suspicious circumstances cannot relieve the prosecution of its primary duty of proving its case against an accused beyond reasonable doubt. 87. The principle which can thus be culled out from the above judicial pronouncements is that a non-shifting burden lies on the prosecution in a criminal trial to prove a charge against an accused beyond all reasonable doubts. However, strong the suspicion or suspicious circumstances may be, the prosecution would not be relieved of its solemn obligation of establishing the guilt of the accused and an accused is presumed to be innocent till such burden is satisfactorily discharged. 88. In K.K. Singh and Ors. (supra), the Apex Court examined the scope of drawing adverse inference against the prosecution for not examining all its witnesses. It was held that though it is open for the prosecutor not to examine a person who in his opinion has not witnessed the incident and further where a large number of persons have witnessed the incident, it is open to him to make a selection, the Court may draw an adverse inference if it is shown that the persons who have witnessed the incident had been deliberately held back because their evidence was likely to go against the prosecution. Acting on the above principle, the Apex Court set aside the conviction of the Appellant in S.H. Singh (supra) holding that non-compliance of Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, coupled with non-production of three material witnesses had caused miscarriage of justice. It was held in Ishwar Singh (supra)that non-examination of some of the eye witnesses named in the FIR without any explanation was significant in view of the discrepancies between the FIR and the account of the occurrence furnished by the prosecution in Court and that these circumstances were relevant for considering the probability of the case. 89. In Bandhagarh( supra), this Court drew an adverse inference against the prosecution for not examining the person on whose information the FIR was lodged and also the eye witness to the occurrence. A plea was taken before the Apex Court in Pattad Amarappa and Ors. (supra) that the prosecution case was open to doubt as only the relations of the deceased were examined leaving out the neighbours or independent witnesses. This contention was repelled observing that it could not be presumed that the neighbours of the deceased had witnessed the murderous assault. In this context, the Apex Court went on to observe further that the prosecution couldn't be compelled to examine one witness or the other and if a material witness is withheld, the utmost that would follow would be to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution. It however added that before such adverse inference can be drawn it must be proved to the Court that the material witnesses had actually seen the occurrence but had been deliberately withheld by the prosecution. 90. The principle formulated by the above authorities is that the though the prosecution has a choice of selecting its witnesses, if there are many, if it appears that some witnesses have been deliberately withheld lest the prosecution case would have been adversely affected by their testimony an adverse presumption can be drawn by a Court against the prosecution. This presumption will then have a bearing on the credibility of the prosecution case. In case, the prosecution abstains from examining the material witnesses an explanation to that effect is desirable. 91. The approach of placing implicit reliance on the testimony of the witnesses was disapproved by the Apex Court in Hallu and Ors. This presumption will then have a bearing on the credibility of the prosecution case. In case, the prosecution abstains from examining the material witnesses an explanation to that effect is desirable. 91. The approach of placing implicit reliance on the testimony of the witnesses was disapproved by the Apex Court in Hallu and Ors. (supra) observing that it is always advisable that the testimony of a witness be judge on the anvil of objective considerations of the case. 92. The following string of authorities deal with the aspect of identification of the accused and the articles seized in a criminal trial. The Apex Court in Laxmipat Chaurasia and Ors. (supra) had held that the ability of a witness to identify a suspect has to be tested without showing him the suspect or his photograph or furnishing him any data for identification. Showing of photograph prior to the identification makes the identification worthless, it observed. 93. That the identification of an stranger in the Court for the first time in absence of a test identification parade is entirely unsafe and of no evidentiary value was highlighted by the Apex Court in State of Maharastra v. Sukhdeo (supra), Budhsen and Anr. (supra), N.G. Gehani (supra), Sahadeo Gohain (supra) and State of Delhi v. Sukla and Anr. (supra). It was, however, observed in Budhsen and Anr. (supra) that the evidence of identification of the accused for the first time at the trial, in order to carry conviction should clarify as to how and under what circumstances he came to pick up a particular accused person and the details of the particulars which the accused in the crime in question with reasonable particularity played. The objects of holding the test identification parade were underlined by the Apex Court in Harnat Singh (supra) and Rameswar Singh (supra). It was held in Harnat Singh(ibid) that the objects are (1) to satisfy the investigating authority that a certain person not personally known to the witness was involved in the commission of the crime and (2) to furnish evidence to corroborate the testimony which the witness concerned tenders before the Court, (3) to assure the investigating agency that the investigation is proceeding in the right lines. 94. 94. The principle thus enunciated is that if a person accused of an offence is not known to the witnesses from before, his identification for the first time in Court in absence of test identification parade conducted earlier, is useless and cannot be a basis to establish the identity of the accused. It is, therefore, that a test identification parade should be held for the investigating agency to ensure that it is proceeding in the right direction in tracking the offender and more importantly for lending corroboration to the evidence of the witnesses at the trial. An exception to this as noticed in Budhsen and Anr. (supra) is when the witness concerned can furnish with necessary clarity the circumstances under which he had particularly interacted with the accused at the relevant time so much so to carry an impression about him sufficient enough to identify the accused even without a prior test identification parade. 95. The scope and object of the proviso to Section 162, Code of Criminal Procedure, was dwelt upon by the Apex Court in Tehsildar Singh (supra). It was, inter alia, held therein that if the police statements and the evidence before the Court are so inconsistent with each other that both of them cannot coexist it could be said to contradict each other. In the contextual facts in Bhajan Singh (supra), the Apex Court acquitted the Appellant being satisfied that the contradictions noticed in the versions of the prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure qua their evidence at the trial had cast a legitimate doubt regarding the truth of the prosecution case. On the same consideration after viewing the in consistencies in the testimony of the witnesses, vis-a-vis, their statements under Section 161(3), Code of Criminal Procedure, the Appellant was acquitted granting him the benefit of doubt. 96. The statement of law thus scripted is that if the statement of a witness made in course of police investigation and his evidence at the trial are so inconsistent in material particulars that both cannot be reconciled resulting in a real and serious doubt on the truthfulness of the prosecution case, the accused would be entitled to the benefit of such doubt. 97. 97. Tiirning to the facts of the present case as adverted to earlier, the prosecution case on the occurrence is founded on the evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5, P.W.-17, P.W.-21 and P.W.-22. The P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4 and P.W.-5, claimed to be present at the place of occurrence being on duty. P.W.-17 being the District Magistrate of Kamrup at the relevant time was present on the occasion along with P.W.-21, Mr Hiteswar Saikia, and his wife P.W.-22. Barring a few inconsistencies P.W.-1 to P.W.-5 have been more or less consistent in their version. They have deposed on oath that on the day of occurrence after the function was over and P.W.-21 had boarded the car, the Appellant with a loaded revolver in hand barged in and placed it on the fore head of Mr Hiteswar Saikia and it was at that point of time that he was over powered by them along with other police personnel present and the revolver was snatched away from him. P.W.-17 has supported the apprehension of the assailant though his evidence does not disclose that he identified the Appellant at the place of occurrence. P.W.-21 and P.W.-22 have also substantially corroborated P.W.-1 to P.W.-5 though they could not identify the Appellant at the spot. It is, however, in the evidence of P.W.-2, P.W.-3 and P.W.-4 that after his detention the Appellant on enquiry disclosed his identity to them. P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4 and P.W.-5, in their testimony have referred to the revolver, which according to them was in the hand of the Appellant at the time of the attempt. P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3 and P.W.-4, have testified about the glove(s) worn by the Appellant at the relevant time. P.W.-1 and P.W.-3 have confirmed that the Appellant was then wearing a full sleeves sweater, P.W.-1 referring to it to be of chocolate colour and P.W.-3 described it to be of brown colour. P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, and P.W.-5, also supported the version that after the Appellant was over powered he was forwarded to the Panbazar Police Station being escorted by P.W.-5 and other police personnel together with the loaded revolver retrieved from him. This is supported by P.W.-19 as well as the GD entry, Ext-18. The presence of the Appellant on the date and time of occurrence and his detention by the security men at the relevant time has been admitted by the defence. 98. This is supported by P.W.-19 as well as the GD entry, Ext-18. The presence of the Appellant on the date and time of occurrence and his detention by the security men at the relevant time has been admitted by the defence. 98. The plea that he had been falsely implicated in the case at the intervention of P.W.-17 and higher authorities of the administration due to the existing strained relationship between the Appellant's father and P.W.-17 does not find support from the materials on record. No acceptable foundation has been laid in support of the plea of false implication of the Appellant. Further such a plea if accepted would presuppose that in the framing up of the Appellant P.W.-21 amongst others was also involved in such a plot. In absence of any material basis in support of such stand, accepting such a plea would amount to acting on hypothesis. This view finds sustenance in the decision of the Apex Court in Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab (2003) 7 SCC 643 , to the effect that if a plea of false implication is made, a foundation therefore has to be laid. 99. The alternative plea that the Appellant was found to be an easy prey by the police administration and thus was projected as the assailant to cover up the lapses in the security arrangements also does not appeal to this Court, inasmuch as, if such an incident had actually occurred it by itself had brought to the fore the chink in the security arrangements and false implication of the Appellant was simply not enough to save the face of the authorities in-charge of the security arrangements. Such a plea being further not supported by any tangible material on record does not merit acceptance. 100. The defence in support of its plea has brought on record an incident of attack on ASI, Shri Sonaram Hazarika, by some miscreants leading to temporary loss of his service pistol and ammunitions. According to the defence, the said incident as recorded in GD entry, Ext-A(1), of Latasil Police Police Out Post had triggered a commotion to quell which the CRPF personnel present prepared to open fire. He out of sheer reflex for safety strayed into the area where the Chief Minister's car was parked and was apprehended. According to the defence, the said incident as recorded in GD entry, Ext-A(1), of Latasil Police Police Out Post had triggered a commotion to quell which the CRPF personnel present prepared to open fire. He out of sheer reflex for safety strayed into the area where the Chief Minister's car was parked and was apprehended. P.W.-5 who proved the said GD entry in his evidence, inter alia, stated that later in the night on the same day he was reported that the service pistol and ammunitions had been recovered. He, however, conceded that he had not made any attempt either to ascertain or to arrest the miscreant in connection with the said incident and expressed ignorance about the steps taken on the said report. 101. This incident even if accepted would not, in my view; render the prosecution case so improbable to be discarded in the face of the other overwhelming evidence on record. The two incidents are severable and can coexist. Noticeably the aforementioned GD Entry does not mention about any such tumultous situation warranting armed intervention. It may be noticed at this stage that P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 had in course of their testimony stated that the CRPF personnel on the happening of the incident of attempt on P.W.-21, were about to open fire but were dissuaded by them. P.W.-4 and P.W.-17, however, have denied about such development. Even if the evidence of P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 on this count is accepted such a situation is clearly relatable to the incident in which the Appellant is said to be involved. This does not advance the defence case. The defence plea, therefore, does not have any annihilating bearing on the prosecution case. 102. The defence had relied on the decisions of the Apex Court in Bhagat Ram (supra) and Milkyat Singh (supra) to underline the proposition that if the defence version case is a probable one it cannot be over looked while judging the veracity of the prosecution case. In Bhagat Ram (supra), the defence taken in course of the trial had at the earliest instance been put forward in a letter on the day next to the incident. The contents thereof were found to a large extent been corroborated by the evidence of some of the P.Ws. The Apex Court observed, having regard to the nature and contents of the letter and the fact that the P.Ws. The contents thereof were found to a large extent been corroborated by the evidence of some of the P.Ws. The Apex Court observed, having regard to the nature and contents of the letter and the fact that the P.Ws. evidence corroborated the same to a substantial extent, that the same suggested that the defence taken was likely to be true. 103. In Mikyat Singh and Ors. (supra), the Apex Court on an evaluation of the evidence on record concluded that it was not possible to hold that the occurrence had taken place in the way as alleged by the prosecution and on the other hand it was difficult to reject the defence version to be altogether false taking note of the medical evidence. The conviction of the Appellant on that consideration was set aside. 104. Apart from the fact that these authorities are in the context of the respective facts, as discussed hereinabove, the defence version in the instant case does not seem to have a material bearing on the prosecution case so as to render it unworthy of credence. These decisions, therefore, are of no assistance to the defence. 105. At the trial P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5, P.W.-17 and P.W.-21 identified the Appellant to be the assailant. It is an admitted position that in course of the investigation no test identification parade was held and that the witnesses had seen the Appellant in the Court for the first time after the incident. In normal circumstances, in absence of a test identification parade, the evidence of the above prosecution witnesses would have been unsafe to act upon. The facts of the present case, however, present a different picture. If the evidence on record to the effect that the Appellant was apprehended at the spot while committing the offending act is accepted, the failure on the part of the investigating agency to hold the test identification parade pales into insignificance. As noticed earlier in view of the consistent version of P.W.-1 to P.W.-5 with regard to the sequence of events leading to the arrest of the Appellant at the spot of occurrence, this part of the prosecution story has to be accepted. As noticed earlier in view of the consistent version of P.W.-1 to P.W.-5 with regard to the sequence of events leading to the arrest of the Appellant at the spot of occurrence, this part of the prosecution story has to be accepted. It is not a situation where the witnesses had a fleeting sight of the offender who was nabbed later in course of the investigation and that the eye witnesses had seen and identified the accused for the first time in Court. P.W.-1 to P.W.-5 in the instant proceeding claimed to have entered into a scuffle with the Appellant in order to prevent him from committing the offence. They not only had an opportunity of viewing the Appellant very closely but also claimed to have ascertained his identity at the place of occurrence by questioning him. He was immediately thereafter escorted to the Panbazar Police Station where he was handed over to the Officer-In-Charge thereof for investigation. The Appellant since then was in custody till he was released on bail. P.W.-21 also identified the Appellant at the commission. He, however, conceded in cross-examination that since the date of the incident he had been carrying aphotographof the Appellant. Though it is not unlikely for a person who had a providential escape from an attempt on his life could have otherwise recalled the features of his assailant though vaguely, his evidence on this aspect has to be taken with a grain of salt. According to P.W.-17 he had seen the assailant from a distance but had no opportunity whatsoever to go near to him and interact with him in any manner. His evidence with regard to identification of the Appellant also cannot be held to be clinching. The above, notwithstanding, the evidence of P.W.-1 to P.W.-5 with regard to the identification cannot be brushed aside. This coupled with his immediate arrest and handing over to the police as well as the admission of his presence at the place of occurrence leads to the conclusion that his identity has been established. 106. The P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-19 have testified about the seizure of the revolver, material Ext-3, and the right hand glove by the police. P.W.-6 and P.W.-19 have proved the seizure of the sweater, material Ext-2. 106. The P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-19 have testified about the seizure of the revolver, material Ext-3, and the right hand glove by the police. P.W.-6 and P.W.-19 have proved the seizure of the sweater, material Ext-2. According to P W-1, in course of the scuffle with the Appellant his left hand glove came to his hand which he handed over to the police at 9.00 PM on the same day and was seized through Ext-1. P.W.-19, the Investigating Officer also proved the said seizure. Ext-18, GD entry also corroborates the seizure of the revolver, bullets and the right hand glove. 107. At the trial P.W.-1 to P.W.-6, P.W.-9, P.W.-19 and P.W.-20 identified the revolver as the material Ext-3. P.W.-4, P.W.-5, P.W.-9, P.W.-19 and P.W.-20 identified the bullets. P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-19 have identified the glove material Ext-1 and the sweater material Ext-2 was identified by P.W.-1, P.W.-6 and P.W.-19. The revolver and the bullets had been sent to the Forensic Laboratory for examination through the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati and the ballistic expert, P W-9, in his evidence confirmed that the revolver with the bullets were received being enclosed in a paper cover containing seal and impression of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati. The identification of the revolver with bullets, the sweater and the glove(s) in the face of the evidence on record cannot thus be doubted. 108. The grievance with regard to the non-examination of witnesses from public also does not have much bearing in the present set of facts. As claimed by the prosecution, the incident had occurred when Mr Hiteswar Saikia had boarded the car and was about to leave Rabindra Bhawan. The security men at that point of time had laid a security cordon around him and was expected to shadow him. Understandably, therefore, the police personnel present at the spot in whose full view the incident had occurred were cited as the witnesses. It is a matter of common experience that when a VIP is escorted by a posse of security guards the members of the public either do not volunteer to drift near the cordon to avoid harassment or for security reasons are kept at bay. P.W.-21 being the then Chief Minister of the State, the security arrangements were very tight as is apparent from the evidence on record. P.W.-21 being the then Chief Minister of the State, the security arrangements were very tight as is apparent from the evidence on record. It is not unlikely, therefore, that the incident which had occurred in a flash had not been particularly witnessed by the members of the public. Shri Gopal Goswami whose name appears in Ext-2 is not a charge sheeted witness. The non-examination of Shri Goswami and any member of the public in support of the prosecution case, therefore, by itself does not prove to be a negative factor against it. There is no material on record to suggest that this has been done deliberately by the investigating agency. 109. Some contradictions in the evidence, vis-a-vis, police statements have been brought out to discredit the witnesses as well. P.W.-2 in his cross-examination admitted that he had not made any reference of the glove (s) in his statements before the police. Similarly, P.W.-3, admitted of not mentioning about the Appellant wearing a brown colour full sleeves sweater at the time of occurrence. P.W.-19, the Investigating Officer by referring to the Case Diary deposed that P.W.-1 did not state before him that the assailant was wearing a full sleeves chocolate colour sweater and that the glove was a woolen chocolate colour one. He further testified that P.W.-1 stated before him that he had seen the revolver in the right hand of the Appellant but did not mention about the holding of the muzzle thereofby him. P.W.-19 further testified that P.W.-5 did not state before him that he saw a scuffle between the boy and the Chief Minister. P.W.-20 also deposed that P.W.-3 did not state before him that he saw P.W.-2 grabbing the boy from behind. He also stated that P.W.-3 did not mention before him that the boy was trying to point the firearm towards the Chief Minister. The witness further mentioned that P.W.-4 did not state before him that P.W.-3 had given the glove (s) to him (P.W.-4). The contradictions in the form of omissions and otherwise as noticed hereinabove evidently relate to the minutest details of the incident. Keeping in view the core of the prosecution evidence, these discrepancies are not considered to be contradiction substantial enough to efface the prosecution case or cast a reasonable doubt on it. 110. The contradictions in the form of omissions and otherwise as noticed hereinabove evidently relate to the minutest details of the incident. Keeping in view the core of the prosecution evidence, these discrepancies are not considered to be contradiction substantial enough to efface the prosecution case or cast a reasonable doubt on it. 110. Albert S. Osborn in his work titled "The Problem of Proof" has dealt with the approach to be adopted in evaluating the evidence when offered as proof of a relevant fact. An extract there from is set down hereinbelow- As is well known, most so-called proof is the result of some measure of inference regarding the evidence of persons, of events, or of things. We are informed by the writers on evidence and by students of logic that knowledge of an unknown, or a bygone fact is obtained either from those who have direct knowledge of that fact, or by means of inference or conclusions drawn from other facts more or less directly connected with the fact that it is necessary to prove. Even when positive oral testimony is given it becomes necessary to infer whether or not the speaker is telling the truth and was qualified to observe, and is reporting correctly. When the evidence is offered it then of course becomes necessary to decide whether it is reasonable to reach a conclusion as to the fact which the evidence is supposed to prove. It is also important to keep in mind the evidence in some way or ways is related to the experience and knowledge of the one who is asked to decide. The final conclusions based upon evidence of almost any kind is necessarily the result, in some measure, of a process of reasoning, or a combination of all the various inferences drawn from the evidentiary matter. In identifying anything a sufficient number of evidentiary facts must of course, combine so that one is justified in concluding that the evidence is sufficient to prove the fact which it is desired to prove. 111. In identifying anything a sufficient number of evidentiary facts must of course, combine so that one is justified in concluding that the evidence is sufficient to prove the fact which it is desired to prove. 111. The following observations of the Apex Court in Gangadhar Behara and Ors., Appellants v. State of Orissa (2002) 8 SCC 381 , are befitting- Therefore, it has to be appraised in each case as to what extent the evidence is worthy of acceptance, and merely because in some respect the Court considers the same to be insufficient for placing reliance on the testimony of a witness, it does not necessarily follow as a matter of law that it must be disregarded in all respects as well. As observed by this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Kalki normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal error of observations, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and those are always there however honest and truthful a witness may be. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party's case, material discrepancies do so. 112. In the same lines, the apex Court in Sardul Singh, Appellant v. State of Haryana (2002) 8 SCC 372 , laid down as follows- There cannot be a prosecution case with a cast-iron perfection in all respects and it is obligatory for the Courts to analyze, shift and access the evidence on record with particular reference to its trustworthiness and truthfulness, by a process of dispassionate judicial scrutiny adopting an objective and reasonable appreciation of the same, without being obsessed by an air of total suspicion of the case of the prosecution. What is to be insisted upon is not implicit proof. What is to be insisted upon is not implicit proof. It has often been said that evidence of interested witnesses should be scrutinized more carefully to find out whether it has a ring of truth and if found acceptable and seems to inspire confidence, too, in the mind of the Court, the same cannot be discarded totally merely on account of certain variations or infirmities pointed or even additions and embellishments noticed, unless they are of such nature as to undermine the substratum of the evidence and found to be tainted to the core. Courts have a feature of the case and the entire evidence with reference to the broad and reasonable probabilities of the case also in their attempt to find out proof beyond reasonable doubt. 113. The evidence on record though discloses marginal deviations and inconsistencies, can be reconciled in the over all picture that emerges from the whole gamut thererof. The prosecution evidence in its entirety inspires confidence and the contradictions and inconsistencies do not affect the pith of the prosecution case. By applying the judicially evolved principles with regard to the appreciation and assessment of the evidence in a criminal trial, vis-a-vis, the materials on record, it can, therefore, be safely held that the prosecution has been able to establish that the Appellant on the date of occurrence after P.W.-21 boarded the car had rushed towards him with a loaded revolver, the material Ext-3 and had placed it on his fore head uttering "Khabardar (Beware) when he was over powered by the security personnel and was taken into custody. Point Nos. 4 and 7. 114. The defence has vehemently disputed the seizure of the revolver contending that the evidence of so-called eye witnesses, P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5, P.W.-17, P.W.-21 and P.W.-22 with regard to the Appellant's possession thereof and recovery is fraught with serious and irreconcilable discrepancies. Moreover, no receipt or a copy of the seizure list in support of such seizure was ever furnished to him. With regard to the glove (s) the plea is that it was not referred to by P.W.-5, P.W.-21 and P.W.-22 in their testimony and further there is no mention thereof also in the GD Entry dated 19.11.83, Ext-18. Moreover, no receipt or a copy of the seizure list in support of such seizure was ever furnished to him. With regard to the glove (s) the plea is that it was not referred to by P.W.-5, P.W.-21 and P.W.-22 in their testimony and further there is no mention thereof also in the GD Entry dated 19.11.83, Ext-18. The left hand glove which allegedly came in possession of P.W.-1 in course of scuffle was also not handed over to the escort party to be produced at the earliest along with the accused Appellant. Similarly there was no mention about the chocolate colour sweater by the P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-21 and P.W.-22 before the Investigating Officer. The witnesses who have referred to the same in course of their testimony at the trial have contradicted each other with regard to colour thereof Moreover, there is neither any reference of such a sweater in Ext-2 or the GD (SIC) Ext-18, nor any receipt or a (SIC) zure list thereof was eye (SIC) pellant. 115. The omission on the part of the investigating agency in issuing a receipt or a copy of the seizure list to the accused Appellant pertaining to the seizure of the revolver, glove (s) and the sweater has been assailed to be in breach of the mandatory requirements contained in Sections 51 and 52 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as Rule 158 of the Assam Police Manual, Part-V. Failure on the part of the investigating agency to make an entry about the seizure of the glove (s) in the General Diary Register has been questioned to be in violation of the Rule 53 of the Assam Police Manual, Part-V and the omission to label, seal and sign the seized articles has been dubbed to be in contravention of the Assam Police Manual, Part-V. It has been contended further that the delayed production of the seized articles in Court was in violation of Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code and that the investigation was further vitiated by other irregularities, namely belated examination of the witnesses. 116. 116. To emphasize upon the requirement of placing an identifying mark on every article of seizure in a criminal investigation, reliance has been placed by the defence on an extract from the book "Crime Investigation" by Paul L Kirk: Every article collected for examination must carry an identifying mark, placed on the object itself or on its wrapper. If it is the wrapper that is marked at the crime scene, at a later time, and before any chance mixing of wrappers can oc (SIC) ur, a permanent mark should be placed on the (SIC) ct itself. Writing with ink, scratching with (SIC) a knife lade or other similar means may be used. The marks should include the date, the place of origin and the name or initials of the person who collected the evidence. This information is often placed on the wrapper only, or on a tie on and the object itself is merely initialed for identification. Record must be kept in a note book of the objects collected, the time and place witnesses present and other pertinent information sketches of the position of objects the relation surroundings and to each other, distances and similar information are often essential and always valuable. 117. In Ram Narain Singh (supra), relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Appellant, the Apex Court had disbelieved the prosecution story of the sudden production of the weapon at the instance of the accused by a person who was not favourably disposed towards him. The Apex Court rejected the evidence to this effect as a meaningful embellishment by the prosecution. 118. The Apex Court in N. Singh and Ors. (supra) had rejected the prosecution case noticing serious infirmity in the main version of the occurrence. There, according to the prosecution two fire arms had been issued but the empty cartridges recovered indicated the use of three firearms. The expert found that three empty cartridges had been fired from the rifle of the Appellant, but in fact no rifle injury was detected in any of the victims. 119. The conviction of the Appellant in Kalwant Singh (supra) was set aside on the ground that the alleged weapon of assault, the pistol was not sealed at the time of seizure and the cartridges had not been sent to the armour for testing. 120. 119. The conviction of the Appellant in Kalwant Singh (supra) was set aside on the ground that the alleged weapon of assault, the pistol was not sealed at the time of seizure and the cartridges had not been sent to the armour for testing. 120. In State of Rajasthan v. Daulet Ram (supra), the acquittal of the Respondent was not interfered with, inter alia, on the ground that the samples of opium had changed several hands before reaching the public analyst. But none of those through whose custody the samples passed was examined by the prosecution to prove that the seal on the samples had not been tampered with. The Apex Court concluded that the inevitable effect of the omission was that the prosecution has failed to rule out the possibility of the samples being changed or tampered before reaching the public analyst. 121. The main consideration on which the prosecution case was discarded in Maden Singh (supra) was that it was not established that the fired cartridge could be linked with the pistol recovered from the accused Appellant. 122. In Datar Singh (supra) as well, the conviction of the Appellant was not sustained as on the evidence, the Apex Court was of the view that it was not possible to connect the cartridges with the gun alleged to be the actual weapon of murder. 123. It is noticeable from the above authorities that those essentially are founded on their own facts. The facts of the instant case, however, present a wholly different picture. The Appellant was apprehended at the spot with the loaded revolver in hand. As he had gloves in hand, the question of ascertaining fingerprints thereon did not arise. The revolver with bullets was identified by the eye witnesses as well as ballistic expert who had examined the same and had opined that the revolver was serviceable and that the bullets were live ammunition capable of being fired from the said firearm. The revolver with the bullets were received by the ballistic expert in a sealed condition with the endorsement of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati. In view of the above overwhelming facts of the case in hand the above authorities in my view do not advance the case of the Appellant. 124. The revolver with the bullets were received by the ballistic expert in a sealed condition with the endorsement of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati. In view of the above overwhelming facts of the case in hand the above authorities in my view do not advance the case of the Appellant. 124. The authorities relied upon on behalf of the Appellant in support of the plea of delay in recording the statements of the witnesses by the Investigating Officer, namely B. Swion (supra), Atmauddin (supra), G.B. Patel (supra) and Subhas and Anr. (supra), do not lay down a general proposition that delay by itself would render the statements of such witnesses unreliable. It was, however, observed by the Apex Court in G.B. Patel (supra) that delay in such recording may assume importance if there are circumstances to suggest that the investigator was deliberately making time with a view to decide about the shape to be given to the case and the eye witnesses to be introduced. 125. Records reveal that three eye witnesses, namely P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-5 were examined in the present case on the date of incident. The revolver with the bullets and the glove (s) were seized on the very same date. The Investigating Officer was changed thereafter and the new Investigating Officer examined some witnesses including the victim on 27.11.83. There is no acceptable evidence on record that the delay was on any extraneous considerations. In any case, the witnesses to the incident and seizure have testified consistently at the trial. The above authorities, therefore, are of no avail to the Appellant. 126. The meaning of the word 'forthwith' was examined by the Apex Court in Keshab Nilkanth Jogleker (supra), Gora (supra) and Gopal Mandal (supra). It was ruled that the word connotes that the related act should be performed with reasonable speed and expedition and any delay in the matter should be satisfactorily explained. 127. The decisions cited with regard to the contention relating to the violation of Section 102, Code of Criminal Procedure, may now be noticed. It was ruled that the word connotes that the related act should be performed with reasonable speed and expedition and any delay in the matter should be satisfactorily explained. 127. The decisions cited with regard to the contention relating to the violation of Section 102, Code of Criminal Procedure, may now be noticed. The Apex Court in Kastarilal (supra) while noticing the requirement of Section 523, Code of Criminal Procedure (old Code), requiring that the seizure of any property by the police officer should be forthwith reported to the Magistrate held in the facts of the case that the property of the Appellant so seized was not kept in the safe custody after making a list thereof and upheld the finding of the learned Court below that the consequent loss suffered by the Appellant was due to the negligence of the concerned police officer of the State. 128. In Nabakumar Das (supra), the conviction of the Appellant was set aside on the ground that the wrist watch in question was not seized from the Appellant and that there was a significant error in the description of the other articles of seizure which were wrapped in a loose sheet of paper and were not under any seal. 129. The seizure of poppystraw in Bahadur Singh (supra) was disbelieved in view of interpolation in the relevant entry of the malkhana. 130. Their Lordships of the Kerala High Court in Kadungoth Alabi (supra) held that the recovery of a shirt from the accused could not be taken to be an incriminating circumstance against him in view of the delay in forwarding the same to the Court of the Magistrate, this being contrary to the mandate of Section 102(3), Code of Criminal Procedure. 131. The prohibitory order issued by a police officer preventing the Petitioner in R. Chandra Sekhar (supra) and B Ranganathan (supra) was set at naught on the prime consideration that no notice as contemplated under Section 102(3), Code of Criminal Procedure, of such order had been given to him. 132. In support of the plea relating to the irregularities and illegalities in the investigation process the defence has pressed into service, the decisions of the Apex Court in Jamuna Choudhury (supra) and Mahmood (supra). 132. In support of the plea relating to the irregularities and illegalities in the investigation process the defence has pressed into service, the decisions of the Apex Court in Jamuna Choudhury (supra) and Mahmood (supra). In the first case the prosecution case was disbelieved as the Investigating Officer had failed to ascertain the cause of the injuries on the body of the Appellant. It was held that because of such omission the prosecution in the facts and circumstances of the case could not be said to have come out with unvarnished truth. In the second case, the Appellant was sought to be implicated on the basis of his fingerprints on the weapon of assault, namely gandasa. The prosecution case was that the gandasa was smeared in all probability with human blood. The plea of the accused Appellant was that the police had blind folded him and after wetting his hands in a liquid had forced him to hold some article. In the facts of the case, noticing inter alia that the gandasa had not been sent for chemical analysis and that the parcel containing the gandasa did not contain the signature of the witnesses, the Appellant was acquitted. 133. As noticed hereinabove, the eye witnesses to the incident as claimed by the prosecution are P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.- 4, P.W.-5, P.W.-17, P.W.-21 and P.W.-22. P.W.-21 is the victim himself. P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 who are the police personnel present at the spot have more or less provided a consistent version about the incident. The identity of the accused Appellant was ascertained at the spot by P.W.-2, P.W.-2, P.W.-4. P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4also mentioned that the Appellant was at the relevant time wearing glove (s). P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 also mentioned about the sweater worn by him, though P W-1 referred to it of chocolate colour and P.W.-3 as brown. The witness P.W.-1, P.W.-4, P.W.-5, P.W.-6 and P.W.-10 proved the seizure list, Exts-1,3 and 6 of the glove (s), revolver and the sweater. The witnesses of seizure also identified the revolver, glove(s) and the sweater as material Ext-3, and 2. The bullet material Ext-6 was also identified in Court by P.W.-4, P.W.-5, P.W.-19 and P.W.-20. 134. The witness P.W.-1, P.W.-4, P.W.-5, P.W.-6 and P.W.-10 proved the seizure list, Exts-1,3 and 6 of the glove (s), revolver and the sweater. The witnesses of seizure also identified the revolver, glove(s) and the sweater as material Ext-3, and 2. The bullet material Ext-6 was also identified in Court by P.W.-4, P.W.-5, P.W.-19 and P.W.-20. 134. P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4 and P.W.-5, however, stated that the seizure list Ext-1 and Ext-6 did not disclose the time of seizure and that Ext-3 did not contain either the seal or the signature of the learned Magistrate. The Investigating Officer, P.W.-20, conceded that the seizure list Ext-3 and Ext-6 were not produced before the Court earlier. P.W.-3 and P.W.-5 admitted that no receipt for the revolver or the glove (s) had been issued. Further P.W.-2 admitted that he had handled the revolver at the place of occurrence and further revolved the chamber thereof. P.W.-5 who produced the accused along with the revolver stated that the Investigating Officer did not label, seal and sign the firearm and the ammunitions in his presence and at the time of leaving the police station the revolver and the bullets were lying on the table of the Investigating Officer. This was supported also by P.W.-4 who stated that at the police station the Investigating Officer took out the cartridges from the revolver and placed those on his table and the same remained as such till the witness was there. The P.W.-19 the Investigating Officer also admitted to have opened the revolver where upon he found that there were 6 bullets in it. He, however, asserted that the seized revolver and the bullets were kept in the police malkhana after making a note in the register. He also claimed to have furnished a copy of the seizure list of the sweater to the Appellant but admitted that neither the seizure list nor the seized weapon was sent to the Court on the next day. He also conceded that the seized articles were sent to the malkhana without sealing the same. P.W.-20, the police officer who completed the investigation in the case testified that the seized cartridges and the revolver were sent to the Forensic Laboratory from the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati, on 28.11.83. He also conceded that the seized articles were sent to the malkhana without sealing the same. P.W.-20, the police officer who completed the investigation in the case testified that the seized cartridges and the revolver were sent to the Forensic Laboratory from the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati, on 28.11.83. He identified the revolver and cartridges as material, Exts 3 and 6, but had to admit that those were produced before the Court only on 28.11.83 and not before that. 135. An analysis of the evidence of the witnesses on the aspects referred to above it has to be concluded that the revolver material, Ext-3, with the bullets, material Ext-6, in it were recovered from the Appellant at the spot in course of the incident. The glove (s), Ext-1/11 and the sweater, Ext-6, had also been seized from him. Though the materials on record disclose that the seizure list Exts-1, 3 and 6 did not mention about the time of seizure or contain the seal/signature of the Court and that those were not produced before filing of the charge sheet, in face of the overwhelming evidence in support of the seizure of the revolver, glove (s), sweater, the said omissions appear to be in consequential. Though a doubt was raised with regard to the seizure of the revolver and the right hand glove by contending that the contents relating thereto in the GD Entry, Ext-18, appearing in English were inserted subsequently, the opinion of the Scientific Officer, Forensic Laboratory, Guwahati, has put at rest the said controversy. 136. True that the handling of the revolver at the site as well as by the Investigating Officer at the police station by opening it and removing the cartridges was uncalled for as it was likely to destroy some evidence in support of the charge, the same by itself, however, does not mutilate the other evidence on record with regard to the recovery thereof from the Appellant and its seizure. 137. Indubitably, however, there appears to have been a failure on the part of the investigating agency to scrupulously adhere to the requirement of the relevant provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure and the police Rules in effecting seizure of the aforementioned articles. 137. Indubitably, however, there appears to have been a failure on the part of the investigating agency to scrupulously adhere to the requirement of the relevant provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure and the police Rules in effecting seizure of the aforementioned articles. Under Section 51, Code of Criminal Procedure, when a person is arrested, the police officer making the arrest may search such person and place in safe custody all articles other than necessary wearing apparel and when any article is seized from the arrested person, a receipt showing the articles taken in possession it to be given to such person. This is also the requirement of Rule 158 and Rule 210(c) of the Assam Police Manual, Part-V. Except a bald statement of the Investigating Officer, P.W.-19, that a copy of the seizure list of the sweater had been furnished to the Appellant, no attempt whatsoever had been made by the prosecution to prove that the above provision of the Code and the Police Manual have been complied with. 138. A police officer seizing a property alleged or suspected to be involved in the commission of an offence is required under Section 102, Code of Criminal Procedure, to report forthwith the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction and when a property seized cannot be conveniently transported to the Court custody thereof is to be given to any person on his executing a bond with an undertaking to produce the property before the Court as and when required. It is admitted by the prosecution that the seizure lists, Exts-1, 3 and 6 were not produced before the Court prior to the submission of the charge sheet and that the seized weapon was not forwarded to the Court on the next day of its seizure. Thus the requirement of the above provision of the Code also remained unfulfilled. This is also in breach of the mandate of Section 52, Code of Criminal Procedure. 139. From the testimony of P.W.-19 and P.W.-20, the Investigating Officers, it transpires that after the seizure of the revolver and the bullets those were sent to the police malkhana after making a note in the register, but the seized articles were not sealed at the time of sending the same to the malkhana. 139. From the testimony of P.W.-19 and P.W.-20, the Investigating Officers, it transpires that after the seizure of the revolver and the bullets those were sent to the police malkhana after making a note in the register, but the seized articles were not sealed at the time of sending the same to the malkhana. The seizure List Exts-3 and 6 though not produced before the Court were sent along with the charge sheet which appears to be in accordance with Rule 158 of the Police Manual. The seized revolver and the cartridges were dispatched to the Forensic Laboratory by the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati, on 28.11.83. This however furnishes sanctity to the factum of seizure and identification of the weapon involved in the offence. It is evident from the testimony of the ballistic expert that the revolver and the bullets were received in a paper box enclosed in a paper cover containing the seal and impression of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati, vide office memorandum No. 191 5(J) dated 28.11.83 in connection with the case. The said witness in course of trial identified the paper box as material Ext-8, the revolver as material Ext-3 and the bullets as material Ext-6, 6(1) and 6(2). 140. The incident had taken place on 19.11.83 and the seizure of the revolver with the bullets and glove (s) was made on the very same date. The sweater, material Ext-2, was seized on 27.11.83. P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-5 were examined by P.W.-19 on the very same date. There after on the instructions of the higher authorities the investigation of the case was handed over by him to P.W.-20. the second Investigating Officer examined P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-15 and P.W.-21 on 27.11.83. P.W.-17 and P.W.-18 were examined on 20.12.83 and P.W.-22 on 29.12.83. Bearing in mind that the three eye witnesses P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-5 had been examined on the same date of the incident and that the investigation of the case had changed hands in between the prosecution case does not merit dismissal on account of the marginal delay in examining the other witnesses. Most of the material witnesses have been examined within a reasonable time of the incident and there is no reasonable ground to suspect any foulplay on that count. 141. It has been held by the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Jagdeo and Ors. Most of the material witnesses have been examined within a reasonable time of the incident and there is no reasonable ground to suspect any foulplay on that count. 141. It has been held by the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Jagdeo and Ors. (2003) 1 SCC 456 and Sahadevan alias Sagadevan v. State (2003) 1 SCC 534 , that mere faulty investigation cannot be a ground for acquittal of the accused and in the interest of justice, benefit of an act or omission of the investigating agency must not be extended to him in the interest of justice. 142. The learned Public Prosecutor also placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Gurnit Singh and Ors. AIR 1996 SC 1393 and State of Rajasthan v. Kishore, AIR 1996 SC 3035 , to underscore the proposition that irregularities and illegalities committed by the Investigating Officer would not thereby render the prosecution case untrustworthy and on that consideration otherwise trustworthy and reliable evidence ought not to be cast aside. 143. The irregularities and illegalities pointed out by the defence in course of the investigation, more particularly, with regard to the seizure of the revolver, bullets, glove(s) and the sweater and the omission on the part of the investigating agency to strictly adhere to the requirements prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Assam Police Manual, Part-v. do not speak as well of the quality of the investigation. Nevertheless, in the face of the oral as well as documentary evidence in support of the seizure and the identification of the seized articles in course of the trial, it is not possible to discard the evidence relating thereto and to overlook the factum of seizure of the revolver, bullets, glove(s) and the sweater on the ground of such irregularities and illegalities. For reject the prosecution case on the ground of short comings in the investigation, the chain of events narrated in the evidence with acceptable consistency will have to be ignored. Such an approach in the instant case is unwarranted. I am, therefore, of the considered view that the revolver with the bullets , glove(s) and the Sweater in question were seized from the possession of the Appellant and fact of such seizure can be acted upon in support of the prosecution case. Point No. 6 144. Such an approach in the instant case is unwarranted. I am, therefore, of the considered view that the revolver with the bullets , glove(s) and the Sweater in question were seized from the possession of the Appellant and fact of such seizure can be acted upon in support of the prosecution case. Point No. 6 144. The decision on this issue would essentially depend on the evidence of the ballistic expert, P.W.-9. According to him, the revolver, Ext-3, was found to be serviceable and was designed to fire .22 calibre live ammunition He deposed that the revolver had been utilized to fire . 22 calibre live ammunitions successfully and was effective when fired properly. The cartridges were also of .22 calibre and had been test fired successfully by the revolver. He maintained that the mark on the rim/rim wall of the cartridge, marked Ext-7 in the laboratory, when compared with the firing pin impression on the test fired cartridge cases of the revolver revealed that it was of the firing pin of the revolver but was not the firing pin impression thereof in its normal process of firing. 145. In cross-examination this witness disclosed that he had not been asked by the prosecution to ascertain the reason why the cartridge with the pin mark did not fire. He cited more than one reasons to be the cause of a firing pin impression on a cartridge like loading, unloading, handling by any human agency, etc. He elaborated that normal process of firing imply loading, cocking and pulling of the trigger by which the firing pin strikes the head of the cartridge case. He opined that if there is a safety catch it is preferable that the loaded weapon be forwarded to the laboratory in the condition in which it was seized. In absence of a safety catch the investigating agency ought to make a note of the position of the cartridges in the chamber and then unload those and send the firearm and bullets for examination. 146. It is in the evidence that after the revolver was wrested from the Appellant it was handled at the spot and P.W.-2 even revolved the chamber thereof. Thereafter on production of the loaded revolver at the police station P.W.-19 had opened it and removed the cartridges. The evidence of the P.Ws. 146. It is in the evidence that after the revolver was wrested from the Appellant it was handled at the spot and P.W.-2 even revolved the chamber thereof. Thereafter on production of the loaded revolver at the police station P.W.-19 had opened it and removed the cartridges. The evidence of the P.Ws. who were present in the police station is to the effect that the revolver and the cartridges were lying in open on the table there and had not been packed, labelled, signed and sealed till they had left the place. 147. A significant omission in the evidence as well as the report of the ballistic expert is with regard to the reason why the cartridge bearing the firing pin mark did not fire at the relevant time. The evidence of P.W.-9 clearly disclosed that no query to the said effect was made by the prosecution and hence not dealt with by him expressly. He was, however, categorical that the firing pin mark on the cartridge had not been caused in the normal course of firing. From his testimony it is further clear that such an impression can be caused by various reasons other than improper/defective triggering of the revolver. In the instant case prior to seizure of the revolver it had been handled and its chamber rolled. It is evident, therefore, that the position of the bullets in the chambers at the time of seizure might not have been as at the time when the revolver was sought to be activated by the Appellant or recovered from him. It is also not in evidence that the position of the cartridge carrying pin mark was at the time of seizure facing the firing pin. In other words, the position of the cartridges in thechambers at the time of seizure is not known. It, therefore, cannot be said with absolute certainty that at the time when the revolver was in the hand of the Appellant, the cartridge bearing the firing pin mark was seated against the firing pin and the firing pin impression was transmitted to the cartridge because of his pulling of the trigger. 148. The following excerpts from the authoritative texts seem to be relevant "Fire Arms in Criminal Investigation And Trials " by B.R. Sharma. A revolver is a convenient repeating rifled handgun. 148. The following excerpts from the authoritative texts seem to be relevant "Fire Arms in Criminal Investigation And Trials " by B.R. Sharma. A revolver is a convenient repeating rifled handgun. It has a unique construction among the firearms in having a revolving wheel for a magazine. The wheel is often called cylinder. The cylinder has a number of chambers, varying from four to seven, in which live cartridges are loaded. The chambers are positioned carefully vis-a-vis the movement of the cylinder. On pressing trigger the next chamber becomes aligned with the barrel of the firearm. The action of a revolver is unique. When the trigger of a double action revolver is pressed, it rotates the cylinder containing the live cartridges. The cylinder revolves through an angle which brings the next chamber of the wheel in alignment with the barrel and the firing pin hole. The rotation of the cylinder is achieved by having a small cog (projection) on the hammer lever which gets engaged to a tooth of a ratchet (with a number of teeth depending upon the number of chambers in the cylinder) cut on the head of the cylinder. When the cylinder has moved through the required angle, the cog and the ratchet get disengaged and the hammer gets cocked and soon after gets released. It strikes the base of the cartridge and fires it. The bullet which is already resting near the chamber end of the barrel, jumps into the barrel and moves towards the target after acquiring forward and angular velocities. 149. Extracts from the book, namely "The Identification of Fire Arms and Forensic Ballistics " written by Major Sir Gerald Burrard would also be apposite. THE STRIKER INDENTATION -The striker indentation can provide invaluable help in determining the thumb mark of a weapon, although sometimes it is of little assistance. I have just stated that the depth of the striker indentation is dependent on the pressure. In fact the appearance of the striker indentation is one of the first points for which a trained ballistican would look when assessing the degree of pressure developed in a fired cartridge. Yet it has been asserted that the measurement of the depth of the striker indentation is one of the methods of determining whether two fired cartridges have both been fired by the same weapon. Yet it has been asserted that the measurement of the depth of the striker indentation is one of the methods of determining whether two fired cartridges have both been fired by the same weapon. As a matter of fact the depth is also dependent on the thickness of the rim in the case of revolver cartridges, and in the gauge and taper of the cases of self loading pistol cartridges. But the important point to realize is that the depth of the striker indentation is useless as a means of identifying firearms. Probably no single class weapon can vary more in the shape of its strikers than rifles and pistol of .22 calibre. The cartridge is a rim-fire cartridge and has no central cap, the whole of the base containing a thin layer of the explosive composition. As can be understood from the generic name, the striker does not hit the base of the cartridge in the center, but on the outside edge or rim. The blow which is thus delivered compresses the cap composition between the nose of the striker and the wall of the cartridge case, and it is the wall of the case which takes the place of an anvil. It will, therefore, be obvious that in order to ensure maximum efficiency and certainty of ignition the center of the striker blow should be delivered exactly over the line of the wall of the cartridge case. In some weapons this does not always occur, and uncertain results as well as mis-tires can then be expected. Gradwohl in his book titled "Legal Medicine " has explained the effects of the cycle of fire upon cartridge components, as quoted herein below. The cycle of fire has an important bearing upon forensic firearms examination, because it is through the separate steps of the cycle that marks are imprinted upon the fired metal components which lead to the possible later identification of those components with the weapon. A systematic consideration of the steps in the cycle of fire will show that marks can be and usually are incurred by the cartridge as a result of mechanical contact as the cartridge is placed into the weapon, fired and removed. The metal of the cartridge is necessarily designed to be of softer material than the weapon, and if marks are imprinted they will transfer from weapon to cartridge and not vice versa. 1. The metal of the cartridge is necessarily designed to be of softer material than the weapon, and if marks are imprinted they will transfer from weapon to cartridge and not vice versa. 1. Marks from feeding. Cartridges fed from a spring-loaded tubular magazine strike a cartridge stop immediately prior to being fed as the next round. This stop leaves a short, crescent-shaped dent on the cartridge case. 2. Chambering. Cartridges which chamber normally will usually not bear any marks of forensic interest. However, use of the wrong ammunition for a particular chamber or correct chambering in a chamber which has been altered or scored may lead to highly significant effects on the cartridge case. Unfired rounds are some- times seen to have a dimple in the primer as a result of being chambered. This may occur from a firing pin that is loose or insufficiently restrained by a counter-intertia spring. 3. Locking. If locking is accomplished by moving either the bolt or the barrel with respect to the cartridge, characteristic marking may take place. 4. Firing. Rimfire firing pins vary widely in shape and lead to class identification as well as individual identification. When the firing pin falls in indents the soft metal of the primer. Simultaneously the chamber pressure pushes the cartridge base and primer rearward against the bolt face and firing pin. If machine-tool marks are present on any of these metal surfaces they are imprinted upon the cartridges in a stamping-like action. 150. It can thus be safely concluded in view of the above graphic exposition on the subject that in the present setting of facts the possibility that the firing pin mark on the cartridge in question had not been caused due to the pulling of the trigger of the revolver by the Appellant cannot be ruled out. It can, therefore, be reasonably held that the firing pin mark in one of the cartridges seized does not unmistakably signify that the Appellant in course of the incident caused it due to unsuccessful pulling of trigger. Considering the state of materials on record on this aspect of the prosecution case, the benefit of this obscurity has to be extended to the Appellant. The above view is reinforced by the decision of the Apex Court in Suratlal and Ors. Considering the state of materials on record on this aspect of the prosecution case, the benefit of this obscurity has to be extended to the Appellant. The above view is reinforced by the decision of the Apex Court in Suratlal and Ors. (supra) and Raghunath (supra) reiterating the fundamental legal principle that in criminal trial when two views are possible on the on record, one in favour of the accused and other against him, the one favouring the accused should be accepted. Point No. 8 151. The evidence of the eye witnesses including that of the victim has already been discussed in details hereinabove. Though they have been more or less consistent in the narration of the facts relating to the actual incident, they are conspicuously silent as to whether the Appellant had in the process attempted to fire the revolver. Even the victim, P.W.-21 and his wife, P.W.-22, sitting by his side, did not even make a whisper that the Appellant after placing the revolver on the fore head of Mr Hiteswar Saikia had pulled the trigger to fire it. There is no evidence either that in course of the scuffle the Appellant was found repeatedly pulling the trigger in a desperate attempt to activate the fire arm and thus to effectuate the purpose of such a daring bid. P.W.-1 to P.W.-5 who held the Appellant in his attempt and had over powered him and snatched away the revolver did not state that the Appellant on such resistance had been making attempts to fire the revolver. It is a normal experience that whenever a revolver or pistol is held by hand the first finger by automatic reflex finds place on the trigger. It is unlikely that had the Appellant the intention of murdering P.W.-21 by shooting him with the revolver, he after taking such a risk at his peril would have omitted to make all possible attempts to fire the revolver. No such evidence is forth coming. The conduct of the Appellant is also incompatible with the similar intention sought to be attributed to him by the prosecution. Assuming that the Appellant at the relevant time nursed the passionate intention of committing the offence it was expected in the normal course of human conduct that he would have spared no means to carry out his intention. The conduct of the Appellant is also incompatible with the similar intention sought to be attributed to him by the prosecution. Assuming that the Appellant at the relevant time nursed the passionate intention of committing the offence it was expected in the normal course of human conduct that he would have spared no means to carry out his intention. There is no evidence that the Appellant on being held behaved violently, or made furious utterances on his failure to execute the planned act or in the process tried to assault one or more of the persons around him. 152. Section 307, IPC, postulates that a person would be guilty of an offence of attempt to murder if he does an act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by that act he causes death, he would be guilty of murder. The act as well as the intention or knowledge, therefore, form the indispensable and pre-eminent components of the offence. The intention or knowledge has to coalesce with the act to complete the offence. In absence of any overt act to carry our the intention a person cannot be guilty of the said offence. Further for an attempt to murder by a fire arm the act has to be the last and proximate act in the process of committing the offence. It, therefore, follows that to bring home the guilt of the accused on this charge, the evidence that the Appellant had pulled the trigger of the revolver to fire it is a must. 153. The Apex Court in Om Prakash (supra) while dealing with the essentials of the offence as apprehending under Section 307, IPC, held as follows: It may, however, the mentioned that in cases of attempt to commit murder by firearm, the act amounting to an attempt to commit murder is bound to be the only and the last act to be done by the culprit. Till he fires, he does not do any act towards the commission of the offence and one he fires, and something happens to prevent the shot taking effect, the offence under Section 307 is made out. Expressions, in such cases, indicate that one commits an attempt to murder only when one has committed the last act necessary to commit murder. Till he fires, he does not do any act towards the commission of the offence and one he fires, and something happens to prevent the shot taking effect, the offence under Section 307 is made out. Expressions, in such cases, indicate that one commits an attempt to murder only when one has committed the last act necessary to commit murder. Such expressions, however, are not to be taken as precise exposition of the law, though the statements in the context of the cases are correct. 154. The decision of the Apex Court in Mohinder Singh (supra) to the effect that where the prosecution has the definite and positive case it must prove the whole of that case is considered relevant in this context. The following excerpts from "CriminalLaw" by JC Smith and Brain Hogan bring out the relevance of ACTUS REUS and MENS REA in comprehending a crime. It is a general principle of criminal law that a person may not be convicted of a crime unless the prosecution have proved beyond reasonable doubt both (a) that he has caused a certain event or that responsibility is to be attributed to him for the existence of a certain state of affairs, which is forbidden by criminal law, and (b) that he had a defined state of mind in relation to the causing of the event or the existence of the state of affairs. The event, or state of affairs, is called the actus reus and the state of mind the mens rea of the crime. When we say then that a certain event is the actus reus of a crime what we mean is that the event would be a crime if it were caused by a person with mens rea. The description of it as an actus reus implies no judgment whatever as to its moral or legal quality. The analysis into actus reus and mens rea is for convenience of exposition only. The only concept known to the law is the crime: and the crime exists only when actus reus coincide. Mens rea may exist without an actus reus of a particular crime does not exist or occur that crime is not committed. 155. The analysis into actus reus and mens rea is for convenience of exposition only. The only concept known to the law is the crime: and the crime exists only when actus reus coincide. Mens rea may exist without an actus reus of a particular crime does not exist or occur that crime is not committed. 155. The fundamental principle of presumption of innocence of an accused till the charges are proved beyond reasonable doubt was recalled by the Apex Court once again in Ashish Batham, Appellant v. State of MP, Respondent (2002) 7 SCC 317 - Realities or truth apart, the fundamental and basic presumption in the administration of criminal law and justice delivery system is the innocence of the alleged accused and till the charges are proved beyond reasonable doubt question of indicting or punishing an accused does not arise, merely carried away by the heinous nature of the crime or the gruesome manner in which it was found to have been committed. Mere suspicion, however, strong or probable if may be is no effective substitute for the legal proof required to greater should be the standard of proof required. Courts dealing with criminal cases at least should constantly remember that there is a long distance only helps to maintain between "may be true " and " must be true" and this basic and golden rule only helps to maintain the vital distinction between "conjectures" and "sure conclusions" to be arrived at on the touchstone of a dispassionate judicial scrutiny based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case as well as quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record. 156. The Apex Court reiterated the oft quoted cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof in Dhananjaya Reddy, Appellant v. State of Karnataka, Respondent (2001) 4 SCC 9 as hereunder. Doubt and suspicion of her involvement in the ghastly crime cannot be ruled out but suspicion, however, strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof. Lapses in investigation, failure of the judicial officer to record the confessional statement in accordance with law and absence of corroborative evidence leaves us with no option but to give A-1 the benefit of doubt. Lapses in investigation, failure of the judicial officer to record the confessional statement in accordance with law and absence of corroborative evidence leaves us with no option but to give A-1 the benefit of doubt. Moral conviction regarding the involvement of an, accused in the commission of crime cannot be a substitute for a legal verdict based upon facts and law. 157. Bearing in mind the state of evidence, the prosecution, in my view, has failed on the most crucial aspect of its case, vis-a-vis, the charge under Section 307,IPC. This facet of the prosecution case has remained in the realm of 'mystic maybe' with no convincing and categorical evidence to support it. To uphold the conviction of the Appellant under the said provision of the code by presuming that he had unsuccessfully pulled the trigger with all his intention to murder P W-21 would tantamount to acting on hypothesis. This would be abhorrent to primary cannons of criminal law, evidence on other accompanying aspects notwithstanding. The offence of attempting to murder is not proved. The charge against him under Section 307, IPC, therefore, fails. 158. The next inevitable question that would arise is of what offence is then the Appellant guilty. As indicated above, the prosecution has been able to prove that the Appellant armed with a loaded revolver could reach P.W.-21 piercing the security cordon and place it on his forehead uttering "Khabardar" (beware), but was thereafter overpowered immediately by the security men present. The evidence, however, discloses that in between, there was a scuffle between the Appellant and the victim. This comes to light primarily from the evidence of P.W.-21 himself. This witness stated that no sooner the revolver was planted on his forehead, the caught hold of the barrel thereof and pushed it towards the back window of the car. A tussle followed and it was then that the attending police officers caught hold of the boy and withdrew him from the car. He maintained that in the incident he sustained injuries on his forehead. P.W.-22, his wife who was then, inside the car also has supported the said version, though, she admitted that before the police she had stated that the boy had placed something on her husband's forehead. He maintained that in the incident he sustained injuries on his forehead. P.W.-22, his wife who was then, inside the car also has supported the said version, though, she admitted that before the police she had stated that the boy had placed something on her husband's forehead. P.W.-1 in his evidence stated that after Mr Saikia had entered the car, he heard a scream from inside the car and saw the back side of a boy from behind. He then came forward and held the left hand of the boy. P.W.-2 deposed that as soon as Mr Saikia entered the car, one boy appeared from the midst of other persons waiting near the car and after taking out a revolver aimed it on the forehead of the Chief Minister. He then grabbed the from behind. According to P.W.-3, he saw the Chief Mini ster pushing the boy from the rear seat of his car and P.W.-2 grabbing the boy from behind to drag him away from the car. P.W.-5, has testified that after the P.W.-21 had boarded the car, he heard some unusual sound from inside thereof and coming near the car, he joined P.W.-2 grabbing the boy from behind and tried to separate him from the Chief Minister. 159. The evidence of all these witnesses pieced together would go to establish that the Appellant had placed the loaded revolver on the forehead of P.W.-21 and in the scuffle that followed between him, the victim and the police men, Mr Saikia suffered injuries on his forehead. 160. P.W.-15 testified with regard to the injuries. He found the injuries to be one lacerated wound with abrasion on the forehead 1? x 1'%? skin deep on the right side and tailing to the left. He opined that the injury was simple in nature. Though in the cross-examination the defence tried to discredit him with regard to the actual time of the injury, his evidence otherwise inspires confidence and is acceptable. 161. The defence had placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in Purushottam and Anr. (supra), Amar Singh and Ors. (supra) and Ishwar Singh (supra) to underline the point that in case of a conflict between the medical evidence and the ocular evidence, the prosecution case is liable to be rejected. The decisions, on examination disclose that those proceed on their own facts. (supra), Amar Singh and Ors. (supra) and Ishwar Singh (supra) to underline the point that in case of a conflict between the medical evidence and the ocular evidence, the prosecution case is liable to be rejected. The decisions, on examination disclose that those proceed on their own facts. No general legal principle has been laid down therein and the conclusions arrived at are founded on an independent analysis of the evidence available. These authorities, therefore, in view of attending facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record are of no assistance to the defence. The Appellant, therefore, is guilty of assault and of voluntarily causing hurt by a dangerous weapon and is thus punishable under sections 324 and 352, IPC. He had not been charged under the above sections of the Code. However, having regard to the fact that he had been charged under Section 307, IPC, for the same offending act and evidence has been led in support of the occurrence, I am of the view that in the above premises, the Appellant would not be prejudiced by his conviction under Sections324 and 352, IPC. 162. It is in evidence that the revolver at the relevant time was serviceable but not manufactured by any authorized manufacturer. The live cartridges that had been found were manufactured in some authorized factory. It has been held hereinabove that the loaded revolver was at the relevant time found in his possession and recovered from him. His case is one of denial and it has not been pleaded by the defence that the Appellant had a valid licence to possess the firearm and the live ammunitions. In the above facts and circumstances therefore the charge against the Appellant under Section 25(1 -B)(a) of the Arms (Amendment) Act, 1983, has also been established. 163. The role attributed to the Appellant in the incident and his conduct of taking out a loaded revolver in course of the occurrence belies the charge under Section 26(1) of the Arms (Amendment) Act, 1983. In all probability, the Appellant had visited Rabindra Bhawan with the loaded revolver and his entry with it was possible as according to P.W.-1, the loanees and their guests were not frisked. I am of the view that the Appellant thus cannot be held guilty of the said charge. 164. In all probability, the Appellant had visited Rabindra Bhawan with the loaded revolver and his entry with it was possible as according to P.W.-1, the loanees and their guests were not frisked. I am of the view that the Appellant thus cannot be held guilty of the said charge. 164. In the result, therefore, the Appellant is convicted under Sections 324 and 352, IPC and Section25(1-B)(a) of the Arms (Amendment) Act,-1983. His conviction under Section 307, IPC, is set aside. 165. Now, the sentence. In course of the arguments, Mr Bhattacharjee had urged that the Appellant was aged 20 years when the incident had taken place and he is presently " about 42 years with a family to maintain. He belongs to an illustrious family of Assam. During the investigation, he lost two academic year. He is presently engaged in contract works and has no past criminal antecedents. 166. One of the fundamental principles to be borne in mind while selecting the punishment to be imposed is that the same should fit the offence proved. The criminal law acknowledges the principle of proportionality in awarding the punishment. According to culpability of each kind of criminal conduct. In other words, the punishment imposed should commensurate the crime. The Apex Court dwelt upon on this aspect of criminal jurisprudence in State of Rajasthan v. Kheraj Ram (2003) 8 SCC 224 , and held as follows: The principle of proportion between crime and punishment is a principle of just deserts that serves as the foundation of every criminal sentence that is justifiable. As a principle of criminal justice it is hardly less familiar or less important than the principle that only the guilty ought to be punished. Indeed, the requirement that punishment need not be disproportionately great, which is a corollary of just deserts, is dictated by the same principle that does not allow punishment of the innocent, for any punishment in excess of what is deserved for the criminal conduct is punishment without guilt. The criminal law adheres in general to the principle of proportionality in prescribing liability according to the culpability of each kind of criminal conduct. It ordinarily allows some significant discretion to the Judge in arriving at a sentence in each case, presumably, to permit sentences that reflect more subtle considerations of culpability that are raised by the special facts of each case. It ordinarily allows some significant discretion to the Judge in arriving at a sentence in each case, presumably, to permit sentences that reflect more subtle considerations of culpability that are raised by the special facts of each case. Judges in essence affirm that punishment ought always to fit the crime; yet in practice sentences are determined largely by other considerations. Sometimes it is the correctional needs of the perpetrator that are offered to justify a sentence. Some times the desirability of keeping him out of circulation, and sometimes even the terrific results of his crime. Inevitably, these considerations cause a departure from just deserts as the basis of punishment and create cases of apparent injustice that are serious and widespread. Proportion between crime and punishment is a goal respected in principle, and in spite of errant notions, it remains a strong influence in the determination of sentences. The practice of punishing all serious crimes with equal severity is now unknown in civilized societies, but such a radical departure from the principle of proportionality has disappeared from the law only in recent times. Even now a single grave infraction is thought to call for uniformly drastic measures. Anything less than a penalty of greatest severity for any serious crime is thought then to be a measure of toleration that is unwarranted and unwise. But in fact quite apart from those considerations that make punishment unjustifiable when it is out of proportion to the crime, uniformly disproportionate punishment has some very undesirable practical consequences. 167. The records reveal that the Appellant in course of the investigation and trial had been in jail for about 2 years 1 month. The defence evidence suggests that the Appellant during his academic years was studious boy with amiable nature. No evidence with regard to any past criminal antecedents has been brought on record. No objectionable activity on his part during the post incident period has also been reported. At the relevant time the Appellant was of young age, still a student, One can take judicial notice of the fact that at the time of incident, the whole State was in turmoil over the foreigners issue and the student body had taken the path of agitation in support of their demand relating thereto. Mass congregations, meetings, processions, etc. marked the mood of the student agitation then. Mass congregations, meetings, processions, etc. marked the mood of the student agitation then. It is not unlikely that the Appellant in his early years being enlivened by the cause was driven by the urge of his age to display his feelings by resorting to such a desperate and daring feat. The situation prevailing at the relevant time, to say the least, was seething and extraordinary and the Appellant might have over reacted in the circumstances. He belongs to a family which is held in high esteem in the country. Twenty years have passed since then and presently he has settled in life though in course of the arguments it had been submitted that this episode has left his prospects in shambles, his conduct thoroughly indiscreet though, in the above background of facts in any view does not warrant further incarceration. 168. The maximum imprisonment prescribed under the Code for offence under Section 325, IPC, is three years, that for section 352, IPC, is three months and for section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms (Amendment) Act, 1983, is three years. The Petitioner has been in jail already for about 2 years 1 month. In the attending facts and circumstances and on over all consideration of all relevant factors, I sentence the Appellant to suffer imprisonment for the period already undergone in jail custody for his conviction under Section 324, IPC, with a fine of Rs. 10,000.00 in default imprisonment for another six moths. He is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a period of three months for his conviction under Section 352, IPC and for two years with a fine of Rs. 500.00 under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms (Amendment) Act, 1983. The sentences would run concurrently. The periods of imprisonment would be set off under Section 428, Code of Criminal Procedure. The manner in which the Appellant had committed offence proved against him does not justify extension of any benefit under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Hence the sentence. The, Appellant would deposit the amount of fine before the learned trial Court within two weeks herefrom. 169. In the result appeal is partly allowed and the judgment and order of the learned trial Court stands modified to the extent indicated hereinabove.