JUDGMENT : ROBIN PHUKAN, J. 1. The appellant before us stood convicted by the learned Session Judge, Yupia, in Session Case No. 147/2013 (YPA), under Section 332 IPC and sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of 1(one) year, with a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to suffer further period of 3(three) months. The learned Sessions Judge further ordered that the fine amount, if realised shall be paid to the victim and it is also ordered that the State Legal Service authority shall pay to the victim appropriate compensation as per entitlement. 2. The factual background leading to filing of the present appeal is briefly stated as under: On 02.05.2009 at about 9.30 hours, the Officer-in-charge, SI A. Madal of Sagalee P.S. received one telephonic information from one Teli Talum, Teacher of Govt. Higher Secondary School, to the effect that the accused Tarak Mangha is creating problem in the old market area of Sagalee with his gun. On receipt of such information, he along with a team of constable proceeded to the place of occurrence and reached the house of the accused and enquired about the gun firing and then the accused replied that Police has nothing to do with his domestic matter and when further enquiry was made, the accused suddenly came out of his house with a dao and administered a blow to SI A Mandal and caused serious injuries over the left temporal region. He was overpowered and the dao was snatched and seized and some empty cartridges of one SBBL gun was recovered from his house. On receipt of one FIR to that effect, from SI A Mandal, the O.C. Sagalee P.S. registered Sagalee P.S. Case No. 07/2009, under Sections 333/188/286/336, read with Section 25(1B)(a) Arms Act and investigation was being carried out, which culminated in submission of Charge-sheet against the appellant to stand trial in the Court, under Sections 333/188/286/336/307 IPC, read with Section 25(1B)(a)/27 (I) Arms Act. The appellant appeared before the learned Court of the Session Judge, Yupia, and thereafter, the learned Court below, after hearing both the parties, framed charge against the appellant under Section 333/307 IPC and on being read and explained over, the appellant pleaded not guilty to the same. The appellant appeared before the learned Court of the Session Judge, Yupia, and thereafter, the learned Court below, after hearing both the parties, framed charge against the appellant under Section 333/307 IPC and on being read and explained over, the appellant pleaded not guilty to the same. Thereafter, the learned Court below has examined as many as 10 witnesses and after closing the prosecution/evidence, the learned Court below has examined the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he pleaded innocent and the accused also examined 3 witnesses to prove the same. Thereafter, after hearing the learned Advocates of both sides, the learned Court below found the appellant guilty under Sections 333/332 IPC and convicted him and sentenced as aforesaid. 3. Being highly aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of and order of conviction and sentence, the appellant preferred this appeal for setting aside the judgment of the learned Court below on the ground that: (i) That, the learned Court below erred in law and fact, in passing the impugned judgment and order dated 31.10.2019. (ii) That, the learned Court below failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective and passed the impugned order wrongly and arbitrarily and that the learned Court below has failed to appreciate the contradiction in the version of the prosecution witnesses and arrived at an erroneous finding. (iii) That, the prosecution side has failed to prove the charge against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. (iv) That, the weapon of offence, though seized in connection with the case has not been exhibited in the Court and therefore, it is contended to set aside the impugned judgment and order and to acquit the appellant. 4. I have heard Mr. M. Batt, learned counsel for the appellant and also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 5. Mr. M. Batt, learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is inherent inconsistencies in the version of the prosecution witnesses and that the prosecution side has failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and that the seized weapon of offence, has not been produced and exhibited before the Court and Mr. Batt referring to evidence of defence witnesses submits that the defence version has amply proved that the accused in innocent and therefore, Mr. Batt contended to record an acquittal by setting aside the impugned judgment and order. Mr. Batt referring to evidence of defence witnesses submits that the defence version has amply proved that the accused in innocent and therefore, Mr. Batt contended to record an acquittal by setting aside the impugned judgment and order. Mr. Batt also referred following authorities in support of his submission: (i) State of Rajasthan vs. Netrapal and Others, (2007) 4 SCC 45 (ii) Sucha Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2009) 11 SCC 584 (iii) State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Pranati Ramulu and Others, (1994) Supp. 1 SCC 590 (iv) Ram Maruthi Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, (2009) 12 SCC 406 (v) Deo Pujan Thakur and Another vs. State of Bihar, (2005) SCC Online Pat. 9 (vi) Jagatram Magar vs. State of Orissa, 1997 Cri. L.J. 1396 (vii) Umesh Debbarma and Others vs. State of Tripura, (2010) 1 GLT 582 6. On the other hand Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that though some of the prosecution witnesses have not supported the case yet there is no inconsistencies in the version of the victim, which is supported by some of the eye witnesses and also by the medical evidence and the FIR and the weapon of offence has been seized here in this case and the prosecution side has succeeded in bringing home the charge under Section 332 IPC against the appellant and therefore, contended to maintain it. Ms. Hage also referred one case law - Prabhash Kr. Singh vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand), (2019) 9 SCC 262 , wherein it has been held that eye witnesses account of the incident, when remained unshaken in cross-examination and also supported by medical evidence, can be relied upon to record conviction. 7. I have carefully gone through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the documents exhibited by it. 8. It is to be mentioned here that in order to establish a charge under 332 IPC, the prosecution side is required to established following ingredients: (i) The accused voluntarily causing hurt to a public servant. (ii) The hurt was caused: (a) When the public servant was in discharging his duty as such. (b) with the intention to prevent or deter him from discharging his duties. (c) in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done in the lawful discharge of his duties as such public servant. 9. (ii) The hurt was caused: (a) When the public servant was in discharging his duty as such. (b) with the intention to prevent or deter him from discharging his duties. (c) in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done in the lawful discharge of his duties as such public servant. 9. Now let it be seen how far the prosecution side has succeeded in establishing the aforesaid ingredients of the charge under section 332 IPC. 10. The evidence of the victim is relevant in this regard. The prosecution side has examined him as PW-9. His evidence reveals that on 02.05.2009, while he was working as officer-in-charge in Sagalee P.S. he received one telephonic information at about 9.30 hours from one Shri Teli Talum that his brother in law, Shri Tarak Mangha has creating problem in old market area of Sagalee with his gun. On receipt of aforesaid telephonic information, he proceeded towards the place of occurrence and heard the sound of gunshot. While he arrived at the residence of Tarak Mangha, he found Tarak Mangha inside his house and on enquiry about the gunshots, he replied that it was their household matter and on his constant enquiry about the matter, the accused hit over his head by means of a doa and caused cut injury. Then the other police personnel who accompanied him overpowered the accused and they had collected two empty cartridges of 12 Bore gun near his door and one SBBL gun. Thereafter, on the next day he lodged the F.I.R. (P Ext.4) and he confirmed the seizure list (P. Ext.1) by which he had seized one dao and one 12 bore SBBL gun and two numbers of empty cartridges. His evidence also reveals that after lodging of the FIR and seizing the materials, he handed over the case to CI R. Khomrang, for further investigation. The defence side cross examined him at length, but nothing tangible could be elicited to rebut his evidence. His version that the accused caused injuries over his head by means of a doa, remains un-rebutted. 11. The prosecution side has examined Dr. Takar Nyodu as PW-8, who had examined the victim. The defence side cross examined him at length, but nothing tangible could be elicited to rebut his evidence. His version that the accused caused injuries over his head by means of a doa, remains un-rebutted. 11. The prosecution side has examined Dr. Takar Nyodu as PW-8, who had examined the victim. His evidence reveals that he examined SI Anand Mandal on 02.05.2009, at about 11.30 pm, and found one semi avulse skin and muscle flap of length 4 inch and depth up to the skull bony surface and breadth of 2 inch over the left side of temporal region extending up to left eyebrow. The injury, according to him, was grievous in nature as it was caused over the face of the injured person by a sharp object. He also found active bleeding but he controlled the same and advised for X-ray and CT scan. Nothing tangible could be elicited in his cross examination also. Thus, the medical evidence also supported the version of the victim on material particulars in respect of the injury. 12. The injury, as described herein above, so sustained by the victim, reveals that the same does not fall in any of the category of hurt described in Section 320 IPC and as such, this Court is of the considered opinion that the injury sustained by the victim SI Ananda Mandol is simple in nature caused by sharp object, and the learned court below has rightly arrived at such a conclusion. 13. The FIR, P. Ext.4, also lends support to the version of the victim in material particulars, wherein, it is categorically stated that the accused assaulted him over his head by means of a dao. Though there is some delay in filing the FIR, yet the same failed to cast any doubt about the veracity of the prosecution version. 14. PW-4, Constable-Tana Tara and PW-5, Head Constable-B.S. Baruah and PW-6, Constable-T.D. Sah, PW-7, Nayak, P. Rajkhowa, who have accompanied the victim to the house of the accused, also lends support to the version of the victim. 14. PW-4, Constable-Tana Tara and PW-5, Head Constable-B.S. Baruah and PW-6, Constable-T.D. Sah, PW-7, Nayak, P. Rajkhowa, who have accompanied the victim to the house of the accused, also lends support to the version of the victim. The evidence of PW-4 reveals that on 02.05.2009, at about 10.30 pm, he accompanied the victim to the house of the accused and found the door of the house of the accused person open and when he asked the accused person to come out from inside and interrogated him about the incident, then he saw the accused coming out with torch in his hand and a dao in his right hand and he enquired who has lodged the complaint before the Police, then the O.C. Mandol tried to catch him, but, suddenly the accused started assaulting the O.C. Mandal, with his dao and then, the O.C. and other Police Personnel overpowered him. PW-4 also identified the accused in the dock of the Court. PW-5, Head Constable, B.S. Baruah, PW-6, Constable, T.D. Sah, PW-7 Nayak, P. Rajkhowa, were the eye witness of the occurrence and they have deposed having seen the accused assaulting the OC by means of a dao over his forehead. Then they took the OC to medical and the accused to Police Station. Cross-examination of these witnesses also could elicit nothing tangible to discredit their version. Of course, it is fact that since all these witnesses are police personnel and on account of belonging to the same department they cannot be said to be independent witness so as to relied upon. But, their evidence, having been fully corroborated by medical evidence and also by the evidence of the victim, their evidence cannot be brushed aside. 15. PW-1, Smt. Tarak Roy, the wife of the accused, and PW-2, Shri Teli Talom, have not supported the prosecution version. Though PW-3, Head Constable, Tari Ruji, accompanied the victim to the house of the accused yet he reached the place of occurrence a little late, and he came to know that the accused assaulted the O.C. Mandol and he was taken to the hospital. 16. PW-10 is the IO, who has investigated the case and laid charge-sheet Ext.6 against the accused. During investigation he has visited the place of occurrence and prepared sketch map, Ext.5, of the place of occurrence. 16. PW-10 is the IO, who has investigated the case and laid charge-sheet Ext.6 against the accused. During investigation he has visited the place of occurrence and prepared sketch map, Ext.5, of the place of occurrence. PW-5, Head Constable, BS Baruah and PW-7, Nayak, P. Rajkhowa are the witnesses of the seizure memo, the Ext.1, by which, the weapon of offence i.e. dao and the gun and cartridges were seized from the possession of the accused in their presence. It is to be noted here that aforesaid items were seized by SI Mandol, who is the complainant as well as the victim of this case. Thus, it appears that the injuries sustained by the victim Ananda Mandol are simple in nature and the same was caused by accused by means of a dao, which was seized, vide P Ext.1. There is no contradiction on this point and the witnesses, PW-4, 5, 6 and 7, corroborated the version of the victim in material particulars and their evidence remain firm in their cross-examination. 17. Having tested their evidence, on the touchstone of basic human probabilities and in its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses, I find no ground to disbelieve the same. The prosecution side has, thus, succeeded in establishing all the basic ingredients of the charge under Section 332 IPC, as discussed herein above. 18. The accused, in his examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. claimed himself as innocent, and examined 3 witnesses, namely, Shri Nabam Rui as DW-1, Shri Nabam Kapa as DW-2 and Shri Tarak Mangha as DW-3. I have gone through same carefully and find that their evidence could not weaken any part of the prosecution version and failed to outweigh the prosecution version. However, it is apparent from their evidence that in the aforesaid occurrence, the accused also sustained injuries on his person and according to him the same were caused by the Police personnel, who accompanied the OC to his house. In his statement under Section 313, also, the accused/appellant categorically stated that the Police team assaulted him while he was being taken to Police custody and in the next morning in the early hours, he was again assaulted in the custody by means of gun, following which he became unconscious and he was hospitalised at R.K. Mission Hospital on 05.05.2009. The medical evidence also supported the injuries sustained by the accused. 19. The medical evidence also supported the injuries sustained by the accused. 19. The counter version is that the accused while he was in custody he dashed his head against the iron rod fitted in the windows and sustained the injuries. Thus, the injury got by the accused stands explained and it does not affect the prosecution case at all. In arriving at such a finding we derived authority from a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the State of Gujarat vs. Bai Fatima, Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 1971, decided on March 19, 1975. 20. I have considered the submissions of Mr. Batt, the learned Advocates of the appellant and also gone through the case laws referred by him. And I find that none of the ratios laid down in the said cases, referred by Mr. Batt, would come into his aid as the facts and circumstances of the case in hand are totally different from the facts and circumstances of the said cases. Therefore, and also for the sake of brevity, detail discussion of the same are avoided. On the other hand I find sufficient force in the submission of learned Addl. P.P. and the case law referred by her also fortified her version. 21. In the result, I find no merit in this appeal and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. The appellant has to surrender before the learned court below forthwith to serve out the sentence.