JUDGMENT K.N. KESHAVANARAYANA, J.—This appeal by the convicted accused is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.5.2004 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-I, Chikmagalur, in S.C. No. 99/1998 convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 307 of IPC and Sections 3 read with 25 of the Indian Arms Act and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and R.I. for one year for the offence punishable under Section 3 read with 25 of the Indian Arms Act. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, at about 9.00 p.m. on 10.11.1997 in Binnadi village of Chikmagalur District, Appellant-Accused with an intention of causing the death of P.W. 2-Ramaiah, fired a gun-shot at him from a Single Barrel Muzzle Loading Gun (for short, ‘SBML Gun’) belonged to his father without holding a licence and thereby caused grievous bullet injuries to P.W. 2 and thus, attempted to commit murder of P.W. 2. 3. According to the case of the prosecution, this incident of gun-shot occurred in view of the fact that P.W. 2 intervened in the quarrel between the appellant and P.W. 6-Sannaiah and pacified both of them by slapping each of them. The appellant alleged to have fired at P.W. 2 annoyed by the intervention of P.W. 2 in the quarrel. In respect of this incident, P.W. 1-Smt. Rathnamma, wife of P.W. 2 lodged a report, based on which, the aforesaid case came to be registered and Investigation was taken-up. 4. The injured-P.W. 2 was treated by P.W. 10-Dr. D.V. Sundar in District Hospital at Chikmagalur and during examination, he noticed bleeding injuries on the left thigh with six exit wounds. 5. During Investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the witnesses and after completing Investigation, laid the charge sheet. 6. The father of the appellant, who had been arraigned as Accused No. 2 reported to have died even before filing of the charge sheet, therefore, the case as against him was closed as abated. The appellant on his appearance before the learned Sessions Judge, pleaded not guilty for the charges levelled against him and claimed to be tried. 7. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, examined P.Ws. The appellant on his appearance before the learned Sessions Judge, pleaded not guilty for the charges levelled against him and claimed to be tried. 7. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, examined P.Ws. 1 to 13, placed reliance on the documentary evidence marked as Exs. PI to P16 and the material objects-MOs. 1 to 6. 8. During his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, the appellant/accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He did not choose to lead any defence evidence. His defence was one of total denial and that of false implication at the instance of P.W. 6. 9. After hearing both sides and on assessment of oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge by the judgment under appeal, convicted the appellant-accused for the charges levelled against him for the offences punishable under Section 307 of IPC and Section 3 read with 25 of the Indian Arms Act and sentenced him as noticed supra. The learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that the prosecution has satisfactorily established the incident of gun-fire by the appellant/accused at P.W. 2 resulting in bullet injuries to P.W. 2 and that the act committed by the accused was with an intention to commit murder of P.W. 2 and therefore, he is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused is in appeal before this Court. 10. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the Respondent-State. I have perused the records secured from the trial Court. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the judgment under appeal is highly perverse and illegal inasmuch as the learned Sessions Judge has not properly evaluated the evidence on record before recording the finding of guilt of the appellant/accused. He contended that the learned Sessions Judge has failed to notice that, even from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 6, it is clear that there was complete darkness at the alleged place of occurrence, as such, one could not see the other even from a close distance and therefore, they were not in a position to identify the assailants. He further contended that, according to the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 6, it is clear that there was complete darkness at the alleged place of occurrence, as such, one could not see the other even from a close distance and therefore, they were not in a position to identify the assailants. He further contended that, according to the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, after pacifying the quarrel between the accused and P.W. 6, they were returning towards their house and at that time, P.W. 2 received bullet-shot from behind, as such, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were not in a position to identify the assailants, therefore, he contended that the evidence on record does not establish the complicity of this appellant/accused for the injuries suffered by P.W. 2. He further contended that, even according to the prosecution, the gun belonged to the father of the appellant, who held a valid license and in the absence of any acceptable evidence to establish the user of the said gun by the appellant/accused, the trial Court has committed serious error in holding the appellant/accused guilty of the offence under the Indian Arms Act. He further contended that except producing the order of sanction for prosecution under the Indian Arms Act, the prosecution has not proved the same by examining the person who granted sanction and therefore, the alleged sanction is not proved, as such, the prosecution of the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act is without jurisdiction. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Vithal Mahadev Patil vs. The State by Belgaum Rural Police, 1996 Crl.L.J 1796. He further contended that the evidence on record with regard to the user of the gun-MO.6 is not established satisfactorily and no live or empty cartridge has been seized from the scene of occurrence so as to connect the same to the gun-MO.3. Therefore, he sought for setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence and for acquittal of the accused. 12. Therefore, he sought for setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence and for acquittal of the accused. 12. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader sought to justify the judgment under appeal and contended that, the learned Sessions Judge on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has recorded finding of guilt against the appellant/accused and since the said findings are sound and reasonable, regard being had to the evidence on record, there are no grounds warranting interference by this Court. He further contended that though P.Ws. 1, 2 and 6 have admitted in their evidence that there was complete darkness at the scene of occurrence, their evidence indicates that the accused was a known person, as such, they were able to identify the accused firing at P.W. 2. He contended that since the incident of gun-fire occurred immediately after P.W. 2 pacifying quarrel between accused and P.W. 6, even though there was complete darkness, the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 6 with regard to the complicity of the accused cannot be doubted. Therefore, the Court below is justified in placing reliance on the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 6 to hold that the accused was responsible for the bullet injuries suffered by P.W. 2. He contended that admittedly the SBML Gun which was seized in the case was owned by the father of the appellant/accused and since the appellant/accused had no licence to either possess or use the fire-arm, the Court below has rightly held the appellant/accused guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 3 read with 25 of the Indian Arms Act. Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the appeal. 13. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, the points that arise for my consideration are,- (i) Whether the judgment under appeal suffers from perversity and illegality warranting interference by this Court? (ii) Whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified in holding the appellant guilty of the offences punishable under Section 307 of IPC and Section 3 read with 25 of the Indian Arms Act? 14. I have bestowed my anxious considerations to the submissions made on both sides. 15. From the evidence of P.W. 10-Dr. (ii) Whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified in holding the appellant guilty of the offences punishable under Section 307 of IPC and Section 3 read with 25 of the Indian Arms Act? 14. I have bestowed my anxious considerations to the submissions made on both sides. 15. From the evidence of P.W. 10-Dr. Sundar it is clearly established that, when he examined P.W. 2-Ramaiah, at about 4.00 a.m. on 11.11.1997 he was found having sustained a deep bleeding wound on the left thigh with six exit wounds. P.W. 10 is of the opinion that the injuries suffered by P.W. 2 were bullet injuries. Thus, from the evidence of P.W. 10, the prosecution has satisfactorily established that during the intervening night of 10-11.11.1997, P.W. 2 had suffered bullet injuries on his left thigh. The Court below, in my opinion, in the light of the evidence of P.W. 10, is justified in holding that the prosecution has established that P.W. 2 has suffered bullet injuries in the incident in question. 16. The next aspect required to be considered is, whether the appellant-accused was responsible for the injuries suffered by P.W. 2. 17. As noticed supra, according to the case of the prosecution, during the night of 10.11.1997, P.W. 6 and appellant/accused were quarrelling near their house and on hearing the sounds of quarrel, P.W. 2 went there. P.W. 1 followed her husband-P.W. 2. At that place, P.W. 2 pacified both P.W. 6 and appellant/accused by slapping each one of them. He separated them and asked them to go back to their houses. From the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 it is clear that after pacifying the quarrel, they were returning towards their house and at that time, some one fired at P.W. 2, as a result, P.W. 2 sustained bullet injuries. If P.Ws. 1 and 2 were proceeding towards their house and if someone had fired from behind, it is highly impossible for P.Ws. 1 and 2 to see the person who fired at them. In addition to this, P.Ws. 1 and 2 have categorically admitted that there was complete darkness, as a result of which, one could not see the face of the other. If that was the situation, it is highly difficult to believe that they were able to identify the person who had fired at P.W. 2. In addition to this, P.Ws. 1 and 2 have categorically admitted that there was complete darkness, as a result of which, one could not see the face of the other. If that was the situation, it is highly difficult to believe that they were able to identify the person who had fired at P.W. 2. Even P.W. 6 in his evidence has admitted that there was complete darkness, therefore, he was also not in a position to see the person who fired at P.W. 2. Merely because P.W. 2 sustained bullet injuries immediately while he was returning after pacifying the quarrel between the appellant/accused and P.W. 6, one cannot jump to the conclusion that it was the accused, who had fired at P.W. 2. Therefore, the oral evidence on record is not convincing as to the complicity of this appellant/accused for the bullet injuries received by P.W. 2. Even according to the prosecution, the SBML Gun belonged to the father of the appellant/ accused and as on the date of the alleged incident, the father of the appellant/accused was alive and he held a valid license to possess a fire-arm. Unless it is established by acceptable evidence that the appellant/Accused No. 1 used the said gun and fired at P.W. 2, he cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Section 3 read with 25 of the Indian Arms Act. 18. Section 39 of the Arms Act directs that no prosecution shall be instituted against any person in respect of any offence under Section 3 without the previous sanction of the District Magistrate. In the case on hand, though the prosecution has produced sanction order as per Ex.P.14, the person who accorded sanction has not been examined before the Court. A Division Bench of this Court in Vithal Mahadev’s case referred to supra, has held in Para-13 that, the prosecution has failed to prove the sanction to prosecute the appellant though it has marked the said sanction through the evidence of the Investigating Officer-P.W. 19. Further it has been held therein that, mere marking is not sufficient proof of the sanction and the person, who has granted sanction should have been examined by the prosecution to prove the sanction granted in accordance with law. Further it has been held therein that, mere marking is not sufficient proof of the sanction and the person, who has granted sanction should have been examined by the prosecution to prove the sanction granted in accordance with law. Therefore, the prosecution launched against the appellant under Section 3 read with 25 of the Indian Arms Act does not prove the sanction as required by Section 39 of the Arms Act is bad in law. 19. The evidence of the Ballistic Expert-P.W. 9 would merely establish that there was evidence of discharge from the SBML Gun-MO.3. But, P.W. 9 was not in a position to state as to whether it was a recent discharge. Even according to the prosecution, no cartridge either empty or live was seized from the scene of occurrence. Therefore, there was absolutely no evidence to indicate that the SBML Gun-MO.3 was used for causing injuries to P.W. 2. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has utterly failed to establish the complicity of the appellant/accused for the injuries suffered by P.W. 2. Therefore, the Court below is not justified in holding the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offences. The judgment under appeal suffers from perversity and illegality. The Trial Judge has failed to appreciate the circumstances brought-out in the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 6, which creates great amount of doubt about the identity of the appellant/accused as assailant. Thus, the trial Court has omitted to consider the important piece of evidence on record. If the trial Court had considered the circumstances in its proper perspective, in my opinion, the finding would have been otherwise. Therefore, the judgment under appeal suffers from illegality warranting interference by this Court. The appellant-accused is entitled for an order of acquittal. 20. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.5.2004 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-I, Chikmagalur, in S.C. No. 99/1998, convicting the appellant-accused for the offences punishable under Section 307 of IPC and Section 3 read with 25 of Indian Arms Act, is hereby set aside. The appellant/accused is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. The bail and surety bonds are ordered to be discharged. 21. The fine amount if any deposited, is ordered to be returned to the appellant.