JUDGMENT (CAV) Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J. Both the above stated criminal appeals have arisen out of judgment of conviction dated 06.08.2001 and sentence order dated 09.08.2001 passed by Sri Balmiki Prasad Sinha, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Trial No. 222 of 2000/329 of 1999 by which and whereunder all the three appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years for the offences punishable under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act. However, both the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently. Since both the aforesaid appeals have arisen out of the aforesaid common judgment of conviction and sentence order a common judgment is being passed in both the above stated criminal appeals. 2. The brief fact, which lies to file these criminal appeals, is that PW 3, Govind Singh gave his fardbeyan to S.I., Sriram Pandey, Mufassil Police Station on 26.05.1999 at 03:00 p.m. in injured condition at Sadar Hospital, Aurangabad to this effect that on the same day at about 01:00 p.m. while he was going to his village, Maulanagar and reached near the Toddy shop of Jaggu Chaudhary situated at the bank of Adri Nadi, he noticed all the appellants who were sitting at the Toddy shop of Jaggu Choudhary from before, the aforesaid appellants having armed with pistols came running towards him and seeing them he fled towards his house but all the, appellants chased and encircled him and after that they started making firing as a result of which he sustained fire-arm injury on his abdomen, hand and chest and having sustained fire-arm injury he fell down on the earth. Having heard the sound of firing as well as his noise, villagers and one Sanjay Singh as well as Dilip Singh came running there and saved his life. The appellants fled away towards village, Maulanagar. After the aforesaid occurrence, he was taken to Aurangabad Sadar Hospital where his fardbeyan was recorded. The reason behind the alleged occurrence as disclosed by PW 3 is that in the year 1997, appellants, Mandul and Chuta Ram had committed the murder of his brother, namely, Madan Kumar Singh. 3. The appellants fled away towards village, Maulanagar. After the aforesaid occurrence, he was taken to Aurangabad Sadar Hospital where his fardbeyan was recorded. The reason behind the alleged occurrence as disclosed by PW 3 is that in the year 1997, appellants, Mandul and Chuta Ram had committed the murder of his brother, namely, Madan Kumar Singh. 3. On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan, Aurangabad (T) Mufassil P.S. Case No. 194 of 1999 under Sections 324, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act was registered on 27.05.1999 and on the same day, formal first information report for the aforesaid offences was drawn against the appellants. The matter was investigated by the police and after completion of investigation police submitted charge-sheet against the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. The cognizance of the offences was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, in usual way. 4. All the appellants were put on trial and accordingly, they were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27(i) of the Arms Act. They denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 5. In course of trial altogether, seven prosecution witnesses were examined and prosecution also got exhibited injury report as Exhibit-1 series, signature of PW 2 on fardbeyan as Exhibit-2, fardbeyan as Exhibit-3 and certified copy of judgment dated 11.01.2001 passed in Sessions Trial No. 211 of 1998/08 of 2000 as Exhibit-4. The statements of appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr PC in which they reiterated their innocence. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellants in support of their defence but from perusal of their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Cr PC, it appears that the defence of the appellants was total denial of prosecution story. 6. Learned trial Court having relied upon the testimony of prosecution witnesses as well as documentary evidences available on the record passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order in the manner as stated above. 7. Learned counsel appearing in Criminal Appeal No. 323 of 2001 assailed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order arguing that the learned trial Court has committed error in convicting and sentencing the appellant. 7. Learned counsel appearing in Criminal Appeal No. 323 of 2001 assailed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order arguing that the learned trial Court has committed error in convicting and sentencing the appellant. He further submitted that the learned Court below failed to appreciate this fact that prosecution neither succeeded to prove the manner of occurrence nor to prove the place of occurrence and also failed to appreciate this fact that the injured as well as other witnesses made contradictory statements in course of trial. He further submitted that as a matter of fact PW 3 sustained injury at the hands of extremists but on account of previous enmity he implicated the appellants in this case. 8. Learned counsel Sri B.N. Pandey appearing as amicus curiae in Criminal Appeal No. 342 of 2001 echoed the submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing in Criminal Appeal No. 323 of 2001. 9. On the other hand learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order arguing that prosecution proved its case beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts and the learned trial Court rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants. 10. Now, it has to be seen as to whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order is liable to be sustained in the eye of law or not. 11. PW 1, the doctor Chandreshwar Pd. Srivastava stated that he examined PW 3. Govind Singh on 26.05.1999 at 02:00 p.m. at Sadar Hospital, Aurangabad and found lacerated oval shaped wound 3/4" x 1/2" x peritoneum deep towards level on right side of the lower chest, lacerated wound 4" x 1/2" x bone deep in right on dorsal surface with proximal phalanx in right index finger as well as small multiple injuries in right side of lateral wall of the chest. He opined that injuries No. 1 and 3 were caused by fire-arm and injury No. 2 was caused by hard and blunt substance. He further stated that he kept his opinion reserved till receipt of X-ray report. He further stated that the condition of injured was serious and, therefore, he referred him to P.M.C.H., Patna or M.M.C.H. Gaya for specialized and surgical treatment. He proved injury report of PW 3 as Exhibit-1 as well as reference letter as Exhibit-1/1. He further stated that he kept his opinion reserved till receipt of X-ray report. He further stated that the condition of injured was serious and, therefore, he referred him to P.M.C.H., Patna or M.M.C.H. Gaya for specialized and surgical treatment. He proved injury report of PW 3 as Exhibit-1 as well as reference letter as Exhibit-1/1. He admitted in his cross-examination that injuries found on the person of PW 3 had not been caused from close range. He further admitted that the aforesaid injuries were not possible if one is fleeing and other is chasing. He further stated that no X-ray report was shown to him and, therefore, he cannot say as to whether there was any pilate inside the injury or not. This witness further admitted that lacerated wound may be possible by any hard weapon. He denied this fact that his report was not scientific and the injuries found on the person of PW 3 were not caused by fire-arm. On perusal of deposition of PW 1, it is explicit clear that PW 3 was examined by the doctor and firearm injuries were found on his person on 26.05.1999 at 02:00 p.m. i.e. just after the alleged occurrence. 12. PW 2. Ram Raj Singh is father of PW 3. This witness stated that at the time of alleged occurrence he was at his shop and he got information regarding the alleged occurrence on telephone and having got the aforesaid information he went to hospital where he found PW 3 lying in pool of blood. He noticed injuries on the person of PW 3. He further stated that PW 3 disclosed this fact that while he was going to village, Maulanagar appellants opened fire on him causing fire-arm injury to him and after that Sanjay Singh and Dilip brought him to hospital. This witness further stated that at the advice of doctor, PW 3 was taken to Patna where his treatment was done for 14 to 15 days. This witness stated that PW 3 made his fardbeyan in his presence and he also witnessed the aforesaid fardbeyan. This witness proved his signature on fardbeyan as Exhibit-2. This witness stated that in the year 1997, his elder son namely, Madan Kumar Singh was murdered. In the aforesaid murder case, appellants Chuta Ram and Mandul Paswan were accused. This witness stated that PW 3 made his fardbeyan in his presence and he also witnessed the aforesaid fardbeyan. This witness proved his signature on fardbeyan as Exhibit-2. This witness stated that in the year 1997, his elder son namely, Madan Kumar Singh was murdered. In the aforesaid murder case, appellants Chuta Ram and Mandul Paswan were accused. He further stated that PW 3 was informant of the aforesaid murder case and that was the reason the appellants committed the present occurrence. He further stated in his cross-examination that when he reached at the hospital his younger son, namely Gopal Singh, Sanjay Singh and Dilip as well as injured were present in the hospital. On perusal of statement of this witness, it is apparent that he is not an eye-witness of the alleged occurrence but he proved this fact that he had seen the injuries on the person of PW 3 after the alleged occurrence and PW 3 made his fardbeyan in the presence of this witness. 13. PW 5, Gopal Saran Singh is also not an eye-witness of the alleged occurrence and he stated that he got information about the alleged occurrence at 03:00 p.m. and having got the aforesaid information he went to Sadar Hospital. Aurangabad where the treatment of PW 3 was going on. He further stated that PW 3 narrated the entire incident to him. He further stated that condition of PW 3 was serious and therefore he was taken to Patna for better treatment on the advice of doctor. This witness also stated that his brother was murdered in the year 1997 and in the aforesaid murder case appellants Chuta Ram and Mandul Paswan were accused and both the aforesaid appellants were convicted in the aforesaid case. This witness further stated that PW 3 was informant of the aforesaid case and he was being pressurized by the aforesaid appellants to enter into compromise but p.w.3 did not buckle upon the aforesaid pressure and that was the reason appellants committed alleged occurrence. He further submitted that PW 3 was taken to P.M.C.H., Patna but at the advice of staff of the aforesaid hospital, PW 3. was taken to Anupma Hospital where his treatment was done. 14. He further submitted that PW 3 was taken to P.M.C.H., Patna but at the advice of staff of the aforesaid hospital, PW 3. was taken to Anupma Hospital where his treatment was done. 14. PW 6., Dilip Kumar Singh stated that on 26.05.1999 at about 04:00 p.m. while he was going to his village and reached near pasikhana, he saw a person lying on the earth having sustained fire-arm injury and he also noticed that three persons were fleeing towards village. He claimed to have identified one Gajendra Yadav out of the aforesaid three persons. He also noticed that all the aforesaid three persons were having pistols in their hands. He further stated that he brought injured to Aurangabad hospital. He further stated that his statement was recorded by the police. The statement of this witness reveals that he brought the PW 3 to Aurangabad hospital after the alleged occurrence. 15. PW 7 is Investigating Officer of this case. He stated that he took the charge of investigation and recorded further statement of informant PW 3 and also inspected the injuries of PW 3. He further stated that he found three injuries on the person of PW 3. He further stated that he recorded the statement of witnesses and also inspected the place of occurrence. He further stated that he found blood on the place of occurrence but due to trampling of crowd it was not possible for him to seize the aforesaid blood. He described the boundary of the place of occurrence. He further stated that after completion of investigation he submitted charge-sheet. He further stated that he had recorded the statement of Jaggu Choudhary who was owner of Toddy shop. 16. PW 4. Jaggu Choudhary who happens to be owner of Toddy shop has been declared hostile and stated that no occurrence had taken place in front of his Toddy shop on 26.05.1999. The attention of this witness was drawn towards his previous statement recorded by the Investigating Officer in course of investigation but he flatly denied to have made any statement before the Investigating Officer. 17. PW 3. Govind Singh is informant and injured of this case. This witness stated that his fardbeyan was recorded by the police. This witness proved the fardbeyan as Exhibit-3. 17. PW 3. Govind Singh is informant and injured of this case. This witness stated that his fardbeyan was recorded by the police. This witness proved the fardbeyan as Exhibit-3. This witness further stated that when he reached near the Toddy shop of one pasi, appellants chased him and appellant, Gajendra Yadav opened fire which hit on his abdomen and after that appellants, Chuta Ram and Mandul Paswan opened fire which hit on his right wrist, chest and neck. He further stated that appellant. Gajendra Yadav also assaulted him with lathi. He further stated that he raised alarm which attracted Sanjay Singh and Dilip Singh who came running there but appellants fled away towards village and after that he was taken to hospital by Sanjay Singh and Dilip Singh on motorcycle where his treatment was done. He further stated that he was referred to Patna for better treatment and in Anupma hospital his treatment was done. He also stated that in the year 1997 his brother namely Madan Kumar Singh was murdered by the appellants Chuta Ram and Mandul and he was informant of the aforesaid case and that was the reason the appellants wanted to kill him. On being cross-examined by the defence this witness expressed his inability to disclose the name of owner of Toddy shop. 18. On perusal of statement of this witness it is explicit clear that this witness stated that the alleged occurrence took place near the Toddy shop and this witness further stated that appellants opened fire on him. The statement of this witness is corroborated by the statement of PW 1 as well as injury report as Exhibit-1. 19. No doubt, PW 4. Jaggu Choudhary the owner of Toddy shop has not supported the prosecution story but prosecution has not relied on the statement of PW 4. 20. On perusal of entire evidences of prosecution available on the record, I find that prosecution successfully proved the place of occurrence as well as manner of occurrence. Furthermore, I find that the prosecution witnesses specifically, stated that appellants Chuta Ram and Mandul Paswan were accused in murder case of brother of PW 3 and furthermore. PW 5 stated that appellants, Chuta Ram and Mandul Paswan were convicted in the aforesaid murder case and the aforesaid statement is corroborated by Exhibit-4 which reveals that appellants. Furthermore, I find that the prosecution witnesses specifically, stated that appellants Chuta Ram and Mandul Paswan were accused in murder case of brother of PW 3 and furthermore. PW 5 stated that appellants, Chuta Ram and Mandul Paswan were convicted in the aforesaid murder case and the aforesaid statement is corroborated by Exhibit-4 which reveals that appellants. Chuta Ram and Mandul Paswan were convicted in Sessions Trial No. 211 of 1998/08 of 2000 by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge. Aurangabad on 11.01.2001 and in the aforesaid case, injured of this case was informant and he deposed against the appellants, Chuta Ram and Mandul Paswan. The aforesaid fact clearly establishes the reason behind the present occurrence and, therefore. I do not find any ground to interfere into the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order. 21. On the basis of aforesaid discussions these criminal appeals stand dismissed and accordingly the impugned judgment of conviction dated 06.08.2001 and sentence order dated 09.08.2001 are, hereby, confirmed. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds stand cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the trial Court within a month from Today, failing which the learned trial Court shall take all effective steps to procure the attendance of appellants so that they could serve out their sentences. Appeals dismissed.