JUDGMENT K.N. KESHAVANARAYANA, J.—This appeal by the accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 in S.C.No.3/1999 on the file of Fast Track Court-I, Chikmagalur is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.10.2001 passed in the said ease convicting the appellants/accused for the offences punishable under Section 341, 324 and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentencing to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month, six months and four years respectively for the aforesaid offences and also to pay fine. 2. The appellants/accused were charge sheeted by Sub-Inspector of Police, Bankal Police Station, Chickmagalur District for the offences punishable under Section 341, 504, 324 and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act interaiia alleging that at about 11.00 p.m. on 28.12.1997, when P.W. 1 Annugowda was walking towards his village, near Chanduvalli gate at a distance of half furlong from Kottigefaara village, accused Nos. 1 to 4 by sharing common intention) wrongfully restrained him from proceeding further, abused him in filthy language since he had failed to repay the amount of Rs. 3,000/- due to accused No. 1. and then accused No. 2 assaulted P.W. 1 with a club on the head and when P.W. 1 tried to run away from that place, accused No. 1 with an intention to commit his murder fired at him with a rifle there by caused gun shot injuries to P.W. 1 and thereby, the accused committed the alleged offences. 3. According to the prosecution on 28.12.1997, P.W. 1 after collecting a sum of Rs. 3.000/- from P.W. 6-Bhaskar, at about 10.00 p.m. left Tatagodu village and when he was proceeding towards his village along with P.Ws. 2 and 3, the accused by wrongly restraining him committed act of assault on P.W. 1 and immediately P.Ws. 2 and 3 took the injured to P.Ws. 4 and 5, informed them about the incident and thereafter P.Ws. 4 and 5 shifted the inured to Primary Health Center at Banakal village where the Medical Officer gave first aid treatment and informed the police. On receipt of Ex. P9-memo, P.W. 11, the ASI visited the Hospital and recorded statement of P.W. 1 about the incident as per Ex. P1 and based on Ex. P1, he registered the case in Crime No. 129/1997 against accused Nos. On receipt of Ex. P9-memo, P.W. 11, the ASI visited the Hospital and recorded statement of P.W. 1 about the incident as per Ex. P1 and based on Ex. P1, he registered the case in Crime No. 129/1997 against accused Nos. 1 and 2 and two others, and took up the investigation. During investigation, P.W. 11 visited the scene of occurrence, conducted Spot Mahazar-Ex. P2 in the presence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 and seized the club-M.O. 1 said to have been used in the commission of offence by accused No. 2. P.W. 12-PSI took up further investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses. On 18.6.1998, accused No. l appeared before P.W. 12 along with the copy of the anticipatory bail order. At that time, the accused No. 1 said to have made voluntary statement which was reduced into writing as per Ex. P11 and at his instance, the gun was recovered from his house as per M.O.2 in the presence of P.Ws. 8 and 9 and Seizure Mahazar as per Ex»P8 was drawn. Thereafter, the seized rifle was subjected to Ballistic examination and report was received as per Ex. P14, The injured had been shifted to Wenlock Hospital, Mangalore for further treatment and during investigation, P.W. 12 received the wound certificate as per Ex. P12 from M.G.M, Hospital, Mudigere. P.W. 13 took up further investigation and on completing investigations, filed the charge sheet. 4. Upon committal, the accused appeared before the learned Sessions Judge, pleaded not guilty for the charges levelled against them and claimed to be tried. The learned Sessions Judge had framed charges only for the offences punishable under Section 341, 504, 324 and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC, There was no charge for the offences punishable under Section 25 of the Indian Arm Act as alleged in the charge sheet. After the prosecution closed its side of evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them. The accused did not lead any defence evidence. The defence of the accused was one of total denial and that of false implications. 5. After hearing both sides and on assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge by the judgment under appeal convicted the appellants for the charges levelled against them holding that prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The defence of the accused was one of total denial and that of false implications. 5. After hearing both sides and on assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge by the judgment under appeal convicted the appellants for the charges levelled against them holding that prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused 1 to 3 were sentenced to undergo imprisonment as also to pay fine as stated supra. 6. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellants are before this Court with this appeal. 7. I have heard Smt. Parinitha S. Channal, learned counsel for the accused and also Sri. Karunakar, learned Government Pleader for the respondent/State. 8. I have perused the record secured from the Court below as well as the judgment under appeal. 9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants/accused that the judgment under appeal is perverse and illegal in as much as the learned Sessions Judge has recorded a finding of guilt against the accused persons though there is absolutely no evidence placed by the prosecution to prove its ease. It is her submission that except the interested testimony of P.W. 1, there is no other evidence corroborating his evidence since all other witnesses have been declared hostile and therefore, there is absolutely no evidence worthy of acceptance to hold the accused guilty of the offences. She further contended that the evidence of P.W. 1 Is highly discrepant and inconsistent, as such, his testimony alone could not have been, the basis to hold the accused persons guilty. It is her further contention that the prosecution has not been able to prove any motive for the alleged offences and non-examination of Doctors who said to have treated the P.W. 1 is fatal to the case of the prosecution. She contended that though the ballistic report indicate the examination of M.O. 2, there is no evidence to show that the gun M.O. No. 2 was the one which was used for causing gun shot injuries found on the person of P.W. 1 and in the absence of any acceptable evidence as to the recovery of MO 2 at the instance of accused No. 1, the learned Sessions Judge has erred in holding the accused persons guilty. It is her further submission that the learned Sessions Judge has failed to notice that in the complaint statement of P.W. 1 recorded as per Ex. P1, the names of accused No. 3 and 4 does not find a place and even according to the evidence of P.W. 1, accused No. 3 and 4 have not played any role nor the evidence of P.W. 1 indicates accused Nos.3 and 4 sharing a common intention of causing injury to P.W. 1, therefore, there is absolutely no evidence to establish guilt of the accused Nos.3 and 4, as such, the judgment convicting the accused Nos.3 and 4 is without any basis and it is not sustainable. Therefore, the learned counsel sought for allowing the appeal and for setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 10. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader sought to justify the judgment under appeal by contending that the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge does not suffer from any perversity or illegality. He submits that the learned Sessions Judge on proper examination of the oral and documentary evidence has recorded finding that the accused are guilty of the aforesaid offences, therefore, the judgment does not call for interference by this Court. It is his further submission that P.W. 1 being the injured eye witness, his testimony is not required to be corroborated and in the absence of any circumstances brought out in the cross examination to discredit his testimony, his evidence has been rightly accepted by the learned Sessions Judge to record a finding of guilt against the accused persons. He further contended that the injuries on the person of P.W. 1 has not been disputed by the accused since the accused had no objection for marking the wound certificate Ex. P12, therefore, non-examination of the Doctor has not affected the case of the prosecution nor the veracity of the evidence of P.W. 1. It is also his submission that as the report of the Ballistic expert Ex. P14 was also marked by consent, there was no need to examine the Ballistic expert and the said report dearly establishes the user of MO2 for the commission of the offence. It is his further submission mere fact that the other witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution is not a ground to discredit the testimony of P.W. 1. It is his further submission mere fact that the other witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution is not a ground to discredit the testimony of P.W. 1. He contended that, having regard to circumstances of the case, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly held that P.Ws. 2 to 9 have been woe over by the accused and have deposed falsehood before the Court. It is his further submission that though the names of accused nos. 3 and 4 are not mentioned in Ex. P1, fact that they participated in the commission of offence was disclosed during the investigation and P.W. 1 has identified accused Nos.8 and 4 before the Court as assailants along with accused Nos. 1 and 2, therefore, the judgment convicting accused 8 and 4 does not suffer from any illegality and does not call for interference by this Court. Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the appeal. 11. Under the circumstances, the points that arise for my consideration are: (1) Whether the judgment under appeal suffers from any perversity or illegality calling for interference by this Court? (2) Whether the learned Sessions Judge is not justified in convicting the accused for the aforesaid offences? 12. As noticed supra, according to the case of the prosecution, soon after the incident, the injured was brought near the house of P.Ws. 4 and 5 and from there he was shifted to PHC, Banakal and from there to MJM General Hospital, Mudigere. According to the prosecution, when the injured was in PHC, Banakal, an intimation was sent to the police as per Ex. P9 and thereafter, P.W. 11 came to the hospital and recorded his statement as per Ex. P1. As per the endorsement made on Ex. P9, the same was received by the police at 9.30am and thereafter, the statement was recorded. As could be seen from the endorsement made on the FIR, the same reached the jurisdictional Magistrate at Mudigere, at 2.45 pm on 29.12.1997. P.W. 11 in his oral evidence reiterated the same and there is no serious examination to him. Therefore, there is no delay in either lodging the FIR or the FIR reaching the jurisdictional Magistrate, In the complaint-Ex. P1, the names of Accused Nos. 1 & 2 have been stated with details as to the overt acts committed by them. Of course, in Ex. Therefore, there is no delay in either lodging the FIR or the FIR reaching the jurisdictional Magistrate, In the complaint-Ex. P1, the names of Accused Nos. 1 & 2 have been stated with details as to the overt acts committed by them. Of course, in Ex. P1, though it is stated that two more assailants were with Accused Nos. 1 & 2, their names have not been disclosed. P.W. 1 in his oral evidence has reiterated the facts as stated by him in Ex. P1. In the cross-examination there is no challenge as to the fact of his sustaining injuries and his removal to the hospital. Ex. P 12 is the wound certificate issued by MGM General Hospital at Mudigere. As per the contents of Ex. P 12, the injured was seen in the hospital at 10.45 p.m. on 29.12.1997, on being referred from the PHC, Banakai, and at that time, he found having sustained following injuries. (i) Sutured wound measuring about 2½ inches over the scalp near the midline. (ii) A sutured wound measuring about 1½ inches over the flexor aspect over the Right Wrist. (iii) Six gunshot injuries over the back and loin: (a) over the spine; (b) one to the right side of the loin; and (c) Two over the left side of loin (iv) Haematoma measuring about 4” x 5” over the medial aspect of left thigh. As per the x-ray findings taken at Wenlock Hospital, Mangalore on 2.3.1998, # 13130-Skull X-ray-NRA, Pelvis X-ray-NRA. Chest X-ray shows Radio-opaque pellet like shadows on right side of chest on lateral wall, 8th rib level haemothorax right side, L-spine: Pallet like radio-opaque shadow seen over I and IV lurnbas spine. 13. According to the Doctor, Injury No. 3 is grievous while the other injuries are simple in nature. No doubt, the Doctors who treated the injured in PHC at Banakal, MGM General Hospital at Mudigere and Wenlock hospital at Maiigalore have not been examined. 14. Perusal of the charge sheet filed indicates that Dr. T.M. Prasad, working as Medical Officer In MGM General Hospital, Mangalore and who issued the wound certificate, had been cited as CW. 10. No doubt, the Doctors who treated the injured in PHC at Banakal, MGM General Hospital at Mudigere and Wenlock hospital at Maiigalore have not been examined. 14. Perusal of the charge sheet filed indicates that Dr. T.M. Prasad, working as Medical Officer In MGM General Hospital, Mangalore and who issued the wound certificate, had been cited as CW. 10. As could be seen from the order sheet dated 31.8.2004, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused does not dispute the genuineness of the wound certificate and also the report of the ballistic expert, which had been marked as Exs. P12 & P14 in the evidence of the Investigating Officer and therefore, noting the submission made by the learned counsel for the accused, the learned Sessions Judge dispensed with the examination of the author of Exs. P12 & P14. Thus, from the above It is clear that the accused has not disputed the correctness and genuineness of Ex. P12 and Ex. P14, Thus the contents of Ex. P12 corroborates the evidence of P.W. 1 with regard to the presence of injuries on his person. Pram the evidence of P.W. 1 and the contents of Ex. P12 it is clear that P.W. 1 had sustained six gunshot injuries over the back and loin region. P.W. 1 in his oral evidence has identified the club MO. 1 as one used by Accused No. 2 to assault on his head and gun-MO. 2 as the one used by Accused No. 1 for firing. Of course, the independent witnesses examined as eye-witnesses as well as witnesses for recovery of club-MO. 1 and gun-MO.2 have not supported the case of the prosecution. Nevertheless, Investigating Officer-P.W. 11 in his oral evidence has stated about the recovery of MO.1, while P.W. 12 has spoken about the seizure of MO.2 at the instance of Accused No. 1 pursuant to his voluntary statement as per Ex. P11. Though there is some cross-examination to P.Ws. 11 & 12, nothing is elicited to discard their testimony in that regard. Therefore, there are no reasons to discard their testimony and there are no reasons for them to depose against the accused. It is not the say of the accused that these two witnesses had an axe to grind against them. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly accepted the evidence of Exs. Therefore, there are no reasons to discard their testimony and there are no reasons for them to depose against the accused. It is not the say of the accused that these two witnesses had an axe to grind against them. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly accepted the evidence of Exs. P11 and P12 to hold that the recovery of MOs. 1 & 2 have been proved. Thus, the recovery of gun from the house of Accused No. 1 at his instance has been proved satisfactorily. The report of the ballistic expert-Ex. P14 clearly establishes that the said gun-bore signs of discharge and the said gun is a firearm and it was in a working condition. In the light of the evidence of P.W. 1, in my opinion, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in holding that the gun-MO. 2 was used by Accused No. 1 to fire bullets causing gunshot injuries to P.W. 1. P.W. 1 is an injured eyewitness. It is fairly well-settled that the evidence of an injured eyewitness carries more weightage and it can be the sole basis to record conviction. Corroboration is a rule of prudence and not a rule of evidence. Expecting corroboration to the evidence of an injured eyewitness would amount to adding salt to the injury. If there are no circumstances to discard or doubt the evidence of such injured eyewitness, there is no difficulty in basing conviction on such evidence. Perusal of the evidence of P.W. 1 does not indicate that there was any kind of animosity between him and the accused. Of course, there is some inconsistency with regard to the statements made in Ex. P1 and his evidence in relation to the alleged lone. According to the contents of Ex. P1, the complainant had borrowed loan of Rs. 3,000/- from Accused No. 1, whereas in the evidence he has stated that he was not due any amount to Accused No. 1, On this ground, it cannot be said that the evidence of P.W. 1 is inconsistent, Whether or not he owed any money does not assume much importance. P1, the complainant had borrowed loan of Rs. 3,000/- from Accused No. 1, whereas in the evidence he has stated that he was not due any amount to Accused No. 1, On this ground, it cannot be said that the evidence of P.W. 1 is inconsistent, Whether or not he owed any money does not assume much importance. The fact that P.W. 1 was found lying with injuries has been spoken to by P.W. 3-Mohan who in his evidence has stated that at about 12.30 in the midnight while he was sleeping in Iyyappa Swamy Temple, P.W. 1 came there asking to rescue him and since there was no transportation at that time, he fed P.W. 1 with water and glucose. P.W. 4-Ramesh in hisoral evidence has stated that he saw P.W. 1 lying with injuries near the shop of one Subraya and as per the directions of police, he removed the injured to the hospital at Mudigere. Thus, the say of P.W. 1 that he sustained Injury in the midnight at about 12.00 ‘O’ clock is corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws. 3 & 4. P.W. 1 has categorically stated that Accused No. 1 assaulted him with club on the head while Accused No. 2 fired from a gun, which hit him, as a result, he sustained gunshot injuries. Therefore, the learned Sessions. Judge has rightly accepted the evidence of P.W. 1 though the so-called eyewitnesses examined as P.Ws. 2 & 3 have not supported the case of the prosecution. Merely because P.Ws. 2 & 3 examined as eyewitnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution, there is no ground to reject the evidence of P.W. 1. The testimony of each of the witnesses has to be assessed independently and not in the background of other witnesses turning hostile. There was no reason for P.W. 1 to depose falsehood by falsely implicating the accused. Therefore, the evidence of P.W. 1 has been rightly accepted by the learned Sessions Judge, The learned Sessions Judge has elaborately considered the various circumstances brought-out on record and has assigned cogent reasons as to why the evidence of P.W. 1 deserves to be accepted. The learned Sessions Judge has also held that P.Ws. 2 to 9 have been won over by the accused and have deliberately deposed falsehood with a view to help the accused. The learned Sessions Judge has also held that P.Ws. 2 to 9 have been won over by the accused and have deliberately deposed falsehood with a view to help the accused. I find no reason to differ from the said finding. 15. Thus, the evidence of P.W. 1 establishes the incident of assault on him by Accused No. 2 with a club on the head, which is a vital part and it has resulted in a simple injury. The overt act attributed against Accused No. 1 was gunshot fire resulting in grievous hurt to P.W. 1. The incident: took place at about 12.00 ‘O’ clock in the midnight, while the injured was proceeding towards his village. Having regard to the fact that Accused No. 1 used fire arm and caused grievous hurt to P.W. 1, in my consider opinion, the learned Sessions Judge is right in holding that Accused No. 1 is guilty of offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC apart from Section 341 of IPC. The overt act attributed against Accused No. 2 as rightly held by the learned Sessions Judge attracts the offence under Section 324 of IPC. Admittedly, the names of Accused Nos. 3 & 4 does not find place in complaint -Ex. P1. Thus, P.W. 1 was not in a position to identify two more assailants apart from Accused Nos. 1 & 2, It is not the say of P.W. 1 that other two assailants were armed with any weapon. No overt act is attributed against the other two assailants. From the very content of Ex. P1 it is clear that other two assailants were strangers to P.W. 1. However, during investigation, no T.I. Parade was conducted for the identification of two other assailants. The identification of Accused Nos. 3 & 4 as other two assailants has been only before the Court. As noticed supra, even according to P.W. 1, two other assailants have not committed any acts except the fact that they were with Accused Nos. 1 & 2. Even if Accused Nos. 3 & 4 were the two other assailants, having regard to the fact that no over tact is attributed against them nor they were armed with any weapons, they appears to be mere spectators. Merely on the ground that accused Nos. 3 and 4 were in the company of Accused Nos. 1 & 2. Even if Accused Nos. 3 & 4 were the two other assailants, having regard to the fact that no over tact is attributed against them nor they were armed with any weapons, they appears to be mere spectators. Merely on the ground that accused Nos. 3 and 4 were in the company of Accused Nos. 1 & 2 by it cannot be to infer that they had shared common intention. It is not even the say of P.W. 1 that other two assailants uttered any word nor instigated Accused Nos. 1 & 2. In the circumstances, 1 am of the considered opinion that the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that Accused Nos. 3 & 4 had shared common intention with Accused Nos. 1 & 2 and therefore, they are liable to be convicted by the aid of Section 34 of IPC Is without any basis, as such, it Is perverse and illegal. The ‘materials placed by the prosecution do not establish the complicity of Accused Nos. 3 ft 4 in the commission of the offence. Therefore, the conviction recorded against Accused Nos. 3 & 4 cannot be sustained. In the absence of any circumstance to indicate that Accused Nos. 1 & 2 shared common intention, each of the accused will have to be convicted for the individual overt act committed by them. 16. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered opinion, the act committed by Accused No. 1 in firing at P.W. 1 was with an intention to commit his murder and therefore, Accused No. 1 has been rightly convicted for the offence under Section 307 of IPC while Accused No. 2 Is liable to be convicted only under Section 324 of IPC. 17. In view of the above, the judgment of acquittal against Accused Nos. 3 & 4 Is liable to be set aside while it is required to be modified as against Accused Nos. 1 & 2. 18. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against Accused Nos. 3 & 4 is hereby set aside. Both of them are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. 1 & 2. 18. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against Accused Nos. 3 & 4 is hereby set aside. Both of them are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. In modification of the judgment of the trial Court, Accused No. 1 is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 341 & 307 of IPC, while Accused No. 2 is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 324 of IPC. Each of Accused Nos. 1 & 2 Is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 1 month and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence punishable under Section 341 of IPC, in default, to undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. Accused No. 1 is further sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, In default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 months, while Accused No. 2 is further sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 2 months. 19. The substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. They are entitled for set off of the period of custody during the trial, as per Section 428 of Cr.P.C. 20. It appears Accused No. 2 was already in custody for a period of 252 days and if that is given set-off, he is not required to undergo further imprisonment. However, Accused No. 1 is in judicial custody during trial, he is directed to surrender himself before the trial Court forthwith and upon such surrender, he shall be committed to prison to serve the sentence. If he failed to surrender himself, the learned Sessions Judge shall take necessary steps to secure his presence and commit him to prison.