JUDGMENT 1. By this appeal under section 374 of the CrPC filed the accused-appellants have challenged the judgment dated 30.11.2011 passed by VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Ujjain, in Sessions Trial No.297/2010 convicting the accused-appellants for offence under section 307 of the IPC and sentencing him to seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,500/- and in default of payment of fine he was to undergo additional sentence of six months. The accused was convicted for offence under section 25-1(1B)(A), Arms Act and he was sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine he was to undergo additional sentence of three months. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that complainant Narendra and Sadanand Pasi recorded the dehati nalishi that they were residing at Jabaran Colony under jurisdiction of Police Station Neelganga. When he was going by motorcycle at 10:00 a.m. in the morning on 14.10.2010, near the Gadhapuliya towards Dewasgate he was accosted by present appellants Amardeep and Deepak, who were accompanied by 3 and 4 peoples on motorcycle. Due to previous enmity the complainant was afraid, and speeded up his motorcycle and on reaching near Gujrat Palace the accused came in front of the motorcycle and stopped him and hurled abuses and Goutam, Jeetu and Banti shouted/exhorted that he should be shot; whereupon, accused Amardeep and Deepak took out their pistols (Katta) and fired, as a result of which the complainant Narendra received gun shot injuries in his left leg and right hand as well as stomach. He tried to speed up the motorcycle when Umesh, Banti, Sagar and Yogi caught hold his motorcycle and from behind Dharmendra and Rajju his companions started shouting, and hence the accused fled away on the motorcycle towards Gadhapuliya, whereas the injured complainant went towards Railway Station. The police at the Railway Station saw him in bleeding condition and took him to the hospital. In fact the entire enmity was due to the fact that the brother of the complainant named Kamal had been killed by accused Amardeep and others. So also in the same dispute Amardeep’s brother Rupesh had also been killed and it was due to this enmity that Amardeep, Banti and Sagar had with the common intention and armed with guns tried to murder the complainant Narendra. So also in the same dispute Amardeep’s brother Rupesh had also been killed and it was due to this enmity that Amardeep, Banti and Sagar had with the common intention and armed with guns tried to murder the complainant Narendra. The FIR was lodged at the police station and offence was registered at Crime No.201/2010. The Inspector Ajit Tiwari (PW16) recorded the dehati nalishi as Ex.P-8 on the statement of injured complainant Narendra. On the basis of this dehati nalishi the FIR was lodged at Crime No.201/2010 and offence under sections 307, 147, 148 and 149 of the IPC read with sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act was registered. Reaching the spot on the instruction of Dharmendra PW11, the spot map Ex.P-9 was prepared. The bullets which were recovered from the body of the complainant Narendra PW8 were received from Patidar Hospital and duly sealed. The sample of blood strains and simple earth was recovered vide Ex.P-23 and statement of other witnesses like Dharmendra PW11, Sonabai PW9 and Ajju PW10 were also recorded. On completion of investigation accused Amardeep, Ramesh, Goutam, Umesh, Yogesh and Sagar were arrested. From the accused Amardeep pistol was recovered as Ex.P-21 and from the house of accused Deepak motorcycle Hero Honda Passion Plus was recovered which indicated that motorcycle actually purchased by accused Amardeep who was its real owner. The recovered weapons were sent to the FSL Sagar and consent was sought from the Magistrate vide Ex.P-13. That from injured Narendra clothes and other articles such as the pistol along with six rounds were sent for FSL, Sagar as Ex.P-13. The accused were duly arrested and committed to their trial. 3. The accused abjured their guilt and submitted that they were falsely implicated in the matter. The trial Court on considering the evidence however convicted sentenced the accused as hereinabove indicated and hence, this appeal. 4. Counsel for the appellants has vehemently urged the fact that out of nine accused persons, seven accused have already been acquitted by the trial Court itself and the name of the present appellants also does not appear in the Rojnamcha Sana and under the circumstances the appellants were also entitled to the acquittal. Moreover counsel contended that injured witness complainant Narendra (PW8) was a notorious criminal. Moreover counsel contended that injured witness complainant Narendra (PW8) was a notorious criminal. Moreover he has turned hostile in Court and his testimony is not reliable under the circumstances and counsel prayed that the conviction be set aside since the Court has relied on the testimony of this witness. Moreover counsel submitted that the prosecution story was entirely manipulated and the material witnesses have contradicted themselves. 5. Referring to the testimony of PW1 Ajay Bhavsar the Constable of GRP, he has stated that he was on the station at 10:30 p.m. on the date of the incident and the Constable PW2 Krishnakant Banerjee informed him that Constable PW3 Mahendra Tiwari had come and asked them to come quickly since one man bleeding and soaked in blood had come to the police station and was required to be taken to hospital, since he had sustained bullet injuries. And thereafter, they had taken Narendra (PW8) injured witness in an auto to the police station at Dewasgate and thereafter, the police referred him to the hospital. This statement is directly in contradiction of the Rojnamcha sanha entry and his conduct was also unnatural. 6. Moreover prosecution witnesses Ajay @ Ajju PW10, Dharmendra PW11 have not supported the prosecution case. Similarly Shivnarayan PW12 posted as the Arms Moharir has categorically admitted that although the revolver/pistol seized by him, was in working condition, the pistol was not subjected to finger print investigation. The witnesses of recovery Ghanshyam PW14 and Sunil Solanki PW15 have turned hostile in Court. 7. Similarly the Investigating Officer Ajit Tiwari PW16 has categorically stated that he did not enquire about any previous enmity existing between the parties and that he had not seized the motorcycle belonging to the complainant Narendra PW8 and that he had not examined in custody the motorcycle whether it contained no scratch marks or dent etc. and, therefore, the investigation was faulty and vitiated. 8. Similar attacking the testimony of doctor, counsel submitted that Dr. Mahendra Patidar PW5 has not stated in his report that the injuries were dangerous to life. and, therefore, the investigation was faulty and vitiated. 8. Similar attacking the testimony of doctor, counsel submitted that Dr. Mahendra Patidar PW5 has not stated in his report that the injuries were dangerous to life. Counsel relied on Kamdeo v. State of M.P. [ 2007(I) MPWN 98 ], to state that this Court had held that when there was a simple knife injury it was not any vital part of the body and injury being dangerous was not proved then only on the basis of statement of doctor no offence under section 307 of the IPC could be made out and the offence was converted into one under section 324 of the IPC. Counsel prayed for the same benefit and stated that in the alternative if the Court is satisfied with the conviction of the accused-appellants; the custodial sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. He also relied the judgment of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.1009/2008 where the short sentence of five years has been reduced to the period already undergone by upholding the conviction. Counsel further relied on Ashok Kumar Pradhan v. State of Orissa, Orissa High Court [1995(3) 155], to state that the offence under sections 326 and 304 Part II of IPC was converted into one under section 324 of the IPC. Counsel prayed that the same benefit be extended to the present appellant. He also relied in the matter of State of M.P. v. Amarsingh [1996(III) MPWN 90], to state that when the nature of the injury did not corroborate with the medical report as to grievousness of injury then no inference can be drawn and the offence is not made out. Finally, counsel submitted that the injured complainant Narendera PW8 was a person of ill repute and has already recovered and there are several criminal cases pending against him and counsel prayed that the appeal be allowed. 9. Per contra, counsel for the respondent/State on the other hand has vehemently opposed the submissions of the counsel for the appellants and fully supported the judgment of the trial Court. He categorically stated that the injured witness Narendra PW8 had himself gone to the Railway Station and taken the protection to the police who took him to the hospital. 9. Per contra, counsel for the respondent/State on the other hand has vehemently opposed the submissions of the counsel for the appellants and fully supported the judgment of the trial Court. He categorically stated that the injured witness Narendra PW8 had himself gone to the Railway Station and taken the protection to the police who took him to the hospital. The prompt entry in the Rojnamcha itself indicated the fact that there was no malicious prosecution and secondly counsel submitted that merely because injured Narendra was a notorious criminal does not give the accused appellants right to take law into their hands and shoot the person. Moreover counsel contended that rivalry, enmity was a double edged sword and the same would apply to the appellants also. Counsel submitted that the medical testimony on record as well as the testimony of injured witness Narendra were relied on for the conviction because primarily the entire statement of such a witness cannot be discarded and if there is corroboration of his testimony a hostile witness it can also be relied on, for conviction. Counsel submitted that the accused persons were known to the injured Narendra and hence the trial Court rightly held there is no need to doubt his testimony. 10. Similarly Dr. Mahendra Patidar PW5 categorically stated in the Court that when the patient was referred to him he had not given any history and he had not named the accused and looking to the critical condition he had operated the injured first. He stated in the trial Court that injured Narendra has received injuries in the stomach and intestines the vital part of the body was dangerous to life. Under the circumstances counsel prayed that there is no need to extend sympathy towards accused appellants and he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 11. On perusal the impugned judgment and the evidence on record, I find the questions that arise before me, is whether the conviction can be based on the testimony of injured Narendra PW8 who has been declared hostile by Court and secondly whether the evidence of Dr. Mahendra Patidar PW5 can be discarded. I find on both points that learned Judge of the trial Court has minutely scrutinized the evidence and although there are discrepancies in the testimony of the material witness they are not so vital, so as the effect the merit of the case. Mahendra Patidar PW5 can be discarded. I find on both points that learned Judge of the trial Court has minutely scrutinized the evidence and although there are discrepancies in the testimony of the material witness they are not so vital, so as the effect the merit of the case. It is not an important fact whether injured Narendra had already crossed Gujrat Palace and was then attacked by the accused or before reaching it. The fact remains that accused appellants were known to the injured witness Narendra and have been named by him in the FIR. Similarly, I find that trial Court has properly scrutinized the evidence and acquitted seven of the accused on the basis of the fact that their presence on the place was not properly established. Secondly it appears as if PW8 Narendra has deliberately not named some of the accused and it can be one of the reasons why he has been declared to be hostile also. Most importantly injured Narendra was a notorious criminal but at the same time an important fact cannot be lost sight of blinked away is that the accused had the ‘mens rea’ or motive to commit murder of Narendra since brother of the accused had initially been murdered by brother of PW8. Narendra and obviously the accused were seeking revenge; falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is a principle not available in our jurisprudence. Considering para 2 of the deposition of this witness in Court he states as under : ^^gekjh bu yksxksa ls iqjkuh jaft’k FkhA eSa eksVj lkbfdy ls jkLrs esa tk jgk Fkk rks chp jkLrsa esa vkdj jksdk rFkk ek¡&cgu dh xanh&xanh xkfy;k¡ nh rFkk cksys fd bldks ekj nksA vejnhi] nhid o eD[kh ds il canwdsa FkhaA fQj dgk fiLVy Fkh] ftlls bu yksxksa us eq> ij xksyh pykbZ FkhA esjs isV vkSj mYVs iSj esa rFkk nk,a gkFk dh dykbZ ds ikl xksyh yxhA fQj eksVj lkbfdy ls eSaus Hkkxus dh dksf’k’k dh rks bu yksxksa us esjk ihNk fd;k ftuds uke eq>s vkt /;ku ugha gSa eSa mUgsa ‘kDy ls igpkurk gw¡A fQj eSa jsyos LVs’ku ds vanj th-vkj-ih- Fkkus ?kql x;k tgk¡ eq>s iqfyl okys feysA th-vkj-ih- Fkkuk jsyos LVs’ku ds vanj gS eSa jsyos LVs’ku ds vanj ?kqldj th-vkj-ih- Fkkuk x;k Fkk eq>s iqfyl okys ckgj gh fey x, Fks fQj eq>s iqfyl okys vLirky ysdj x, FksA** 12. Similarly the doctor did not have any axe to grind and did not have any mala fides impugned against him. Doctor Mahendra Patidar PW5 has categorically stated in Court that condition of the patient was critical and he has also stated in Court that the bullet injury on vital part of the body such as the stomach the intestines and required immediate operation. So also injured witness Narendra was duly operated upon. And in this light the cases cited by the counsel for the appellants are of no use to them. Considering the matter of the recovery although independent witness Sunil Solanki PW15 has not supported the prosecution case it is not necessary to doubt in the statement of Ajit Tiwari PW16, the Investigating Officer and V.S. Tomar PW17, Sub-Inspector, who have fully supported the prosecution case and the recovery. Besides Shivnarayan PW12 the Arms Moharir has certified that the revolver seized was in a working condition and Lalit Vyas PW13, ADM office working as a arms clerk has also stated that the consent was given by District Magistrate for taking proceeding against the accused Amardeep and Deepak under section 39 of the Arms Act. In view of the above, police officers in the course of the duty should not be unnecessarily doubted. Moreover, the dehati nalishi has been recorded by some other officer and not at the hand of the Investigating Officer and the Investigating Officer is not the complaint as is being alleged. PW16 Ajit Tiwari, Inspector is reliable under the circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in thge judgment of the trial Court it is in accordance with law and does not call any interference. 13. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is dismissed.