Judgment :- M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM,J Rajendran, the appellant herein was convicted for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and under Section 3(1) read with 25(1-B)(A) and 27 of Arms Act, 1959. Challenging the same, this Criminal Appeal has been filed. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:- "(a) The deceased is one Kalimuthu, who is the junior paternal uncle of the accused. P.W.1 Thangam is the wife of the deceased. There was a civil dispute between the deceased Kalimuthu and his elder brother Murugesan in regard to partition of the family properties. They were residing at Paithur village in separate houses. The deceased Kalimuthu was residing along with his wife P.W.1 and his daughter Prema. The deceased had three brothers. While the father of the deceased was alive, he enjoyed four acres of land. Out of four acres, the deceased got assignment in his name in regard to 3 acres. The other one acre was allotted to Murugesan, the father of the accused. When Murugesan demanded share from three acres, the deceased told him that he would give his share only if he gives money which had been spent for getting assignment. In view of the same, there was enmity between the deceased and the accused family. (b) In the meantime, the Government came forward to help the people to construct houses in the colony. Accordingly, the deceased made an application to the Government to construct a house in the plot allotted to their family. On 2.1.1996, a Surveyor came and planted boundary stone on the plot allotted to the deceased. Objected to this, the accused removed the boundary stone on 2.1.1996 and threw away. (c) The deceased arranged for a panchayat to solve the dispute. Accordingly, P.W.4 Palaya Gounder and another Chinnasamy Gounder came to the house of the accused to settle the dispute. On that date, the accused Rajendran was not available. On 6.1.1996 at about 6.00 a.m., the deceased Kalimuthu with his wife P.W.1 Thangam went to the house of the accused and met his father Murugesan and talked to him that the dispute among them has to be settled. (d) Thereafter at about 8.00 a.m., both the deceased and P.W.1 came back to their field. On 6.1.1996 at about 6.00 a.m., the deceased Kalimuthu with his wife P.W.1 Thangam went to the house of the accused and met his father Murugesan and talked to him that the dispute among them has to be settled. (d) Thereafter at about 8.00 a.m., both the deceased and P.W.1 came back to their field. When they were entering into the field, the accused, who concealed himself behind a mango tree, suddenly appeared and shot at the deceased with a country made gun on the neck and on the chest of the deceased. On receipt of the injury, the deceased caught hold of the accused and both rolled down on the ground. P.W.1 Thangam and P.W.2 Ramachandran, who is a neighbouring land owner, tried to separate them. In the meantime, the accused with his gun ran away from the scene of occurrence. The deceased, who fell down on the ground, died on the spot. (e) Then, P.W.1 Thangam went to Malliakarai Police Station and gave a complaint Ex.P-1 to P.W.11, Sub Inspector of Police at about 11.00 am. The same was registered for the offences under Section 302 I.P.C. and under Section 25(1)(A) of the Arms Act. The F.I.R. is Ex.P-12. He sent Exs.P-1 and P-12 to the Court and the Superior Officer. (f) P.W.17, Inspector of Police, Thammampatti Police Station, on having received the message, came to the scene of occurrence immediately. At 2.30 p.m., he took up investigation and prepared observation mahazar Ex.P-4 and rough sketch Ex.P-21. He conducted inquest and examined eye witnesses P.Ws.1 to 3 and others. He recovered M.Os.2 to 5 and blood stained earth M.O.6 and sample earth M.O.7. Thereafter, he sent the dead body of the deceased for autopsy to the Doctor. (g) P.W.10 Manivasagam, Doctor conducted post-mortem on 7.1.1996 at 10.30 a.m. He found multiple (around 45 numbers) ante mortem dark red punched out gun shot injuries of varying dimension ranging from 1/4 c.m. to 3/4 c.m. over the front of the neck and upper chest. The punched out injuries are lacerated with charred edges and some opening into the thoracic cavity. He gave opinion in Ex.P-11 post-mortem certificate that the deceased would appear to have died of haemorragic shock due to injury to Arch of the Aorta and lungs. The punched out injuries are lacerated with charred edges and some opening into the thoracic cavity. He gave opinion in Ex.P-11 post-mortem certificate that the deceased would appear to have died of haemorragic shock due to injury to Arch of the Aorta and lungs. (h) On 15.1.1996, P.W.17, the Inspector of Police arrested the accused and on his confession, the admissible portion of which is marked as Ex.P-6, he recovered a country made gun M.O.1 under mahazar Ex.P-7, produced by the accused from the thorny bush. He also recovered blood-stained shirt (M.O.8) and dhoti (M.O.9) from the accused. Then, he sent the accused for remand. (i) After observing all the formalities and completing the investigation and after obtaining sanction from the District Collector with reference to the recovery of country made gun M.O.1 under the Arms Act, P.W.17 filed the charge-sheet under Section 302 I.P.C. and under Section 25(1)(A) of Arms Act." 3. During the course of trial, on the side of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 17 were examined, Exs.P-1 to P-23 were filed and M.Os.1 to 15 were marked. 4. While the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he simply denied having participated in the crime. 5. The trial Court on an appraisal of the evidence available on record, concluded that the prosecution has proved its case beyond doubt and convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 3(1) read with 25(1-B)(A) of the Arms Act and rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 27 of Arms Act. 6. Assailing the said judgment, Mr.T.P.Manoharan, the learned counsel for the appellant would take us through entire evidence and contend that P.Ws.1 to 3 would not have seen the occurrence and the medical evidence and forensical report would not conclusively prove that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is reliable and the contradictions with reference to the lodging of the complaint and also the manner of occurrence would make it clear that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 could not be believed. He would ultimately submit that the sanction order Ex.P-20 obtained by prosecution with reference to prosecution under the Arms Act, would not satisfy the requirements for granting sanction, as it is not mentioned that the Sanctioning Authority was satisfied with the materials and then granted sanction and as such, the non-application of mind of the Sanctioning Authority, which is reflected in Ex.P-20, would make the prosecution for the offence under the Arms Act invalid. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has been heard over these aspects. 8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. 9. On going through the entire evidence, we are unable to accept any of the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the appellant. With reference to the lodging of the complaint, it may be true that P.W.1 would state that she alone went to the police station to give a complaint Ex.P-1 and P.Ws.2 and 3 would state that along with her one Dharmalingam and Sengamalai (P.W.8) also went. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that P.W.2 would state that P.W.1 went to the police station in jeep, whereas P.W.3 would state that P.W.1 went to the police station along with P.W.8 Sengamalai in a motor cycle. This contradiction, in our view, is so trivial and on the strength of this contradiction, we are not inclined to reject the evidence of P.W.1, who gives the details of the occurrence both in Ex.P-1 complaint and in her evidence, while deposing in Court with reference to the occurrence. 10. Yet another contradiction pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant is that P.W.1 would state that the accused came in opposite direction and shot at the deceased, but P.Ws.2 and 3 would state that the accused came out from a mango tree and shot at the deceased. There is no dispute that the occurrence had taken place in the place of occurrence as seen in the observation mahazar Ex.P-4 and rough sketch Ex.P-21. It is also noticed that there were so many trees including mango tree, standing nearby. Under these circumstances, this contradiction, in our view, would not make the testimony of P.Ws.2 and 3 unreliable. 11. As a matter of fact, P.W.3 would specifically state that even before the occurrence took place, the accused was standing near the mango tree with M.O.1 gun for about half an hour. Under these circumstances, this contradiction, in our view, would not make the testimony of P.Ws.2 and 3 unreliable. 11. As a matter of fact, P.W.3 would specifically state that even before the occurrence took place, the accused was standing near the mango tree with M.O.1 gun for about half an hour. Coupled with this, the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 is corroborating the evidence of P.W.1 in all the material aspects with reference to the occurrence. 12. Furthermore, the doctor P.W.10 both in the evidence and in the post-mortem report Ex.P-11 would state that the injuries should have been caused by M.O.1 and M.O.1 must have been used by firing on the neck and on the chest of the deceased by standing in a considerable distance. It is also noticed from Ex.P-11 that the doctor found multiple (around 45 in numbers) shot injuries of varying dimension over the front of the neck and upper chest. The punched out injuries are lacerated with charred edges and some opening into the thoracic cavity. On exploration of cavity deep injuries apex lobes of both lungs found lacerated. On exploration of the lungs 5 pellets were recovered. In the arch of the Aorta 3 ante mortem lacerated injuries of 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm x 3 cm x 1 cm apart from one another and they are through and through organs found over the anterior and posterior surface of the Aorta. One pellet was lodged over the posterior surface. Two pellets recovered near the posterior surface of the Aorta. Subcutaneous tissues and muscles found lacerated. 4 pellets were recovered from this area lodging in the muscles. Haemorrhagic clots found around the pellets area. So, these details given in the post-mortem certificate would make it obvious that the accused, who came out from back side of the mango tree and proceeded towards the deceased from opposite direction, fired a shot with M.O.1 at the neck and chest of the deceased, with the result, he died at the spot. 13. P.W.16. Scientific Assistant, on the basis of request made by P.W.17 through Court, sent his report Ex.P-19 giving opinion that these pellets, which had been removed from the body of the deceased, might have been used in M.O.1, the country made gun. 14. 13. P.W.16. Scientific Assistant, on the basis of request made by P.W.17 through Court, sent his report Ex.P-19 giving opinion that these pellets, which had been removed from the body of the deceased, might have been used in M.O.1, the country made gun. 14. Apart from this, P.W.17, the Inspector of Police would state that on 15.1.1996, he arrested the accused and recovered from him M.O.1, country made gun along with other blood-stained shirt M.O.8 and dhoti M.O.9, which contained human blood as per Ex.P-18. This has been supported by the mahazar witness P.W.9. 15. The last contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the order of sanction Ex.P-20 does not show the satisfaction of the Appellate Authority before granting sanction. This also, in our view, does not deserve acceptance for the reason that a reading of Ex.P-20 would make it clear that the Sanctioning Authority has applied his mind and observed that it is a fit case for prosecution. It is under those circumstances, we do not find any merit in this contention also. 16. Consequently, the Criminal Appeal would fail and the same is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused by the trial Court.