JUDGMENT CHANDRA BHUSHAN BAJPAI, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06-04-2000 passed by 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, M.P. (now C.G.), in Sessions Trial No. 403 of 1999 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (in short the IPC) and under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentencinig him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and three years in both the counts and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- (for offence under Section 307 of the IPC), in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months additional R.I. with a direction to run the both sentences concurrently. 2. In the present case name of injured and victim is Goutam Chandravanshi (PW-3) aged about 25 years. It is alleged that on 24-07-1999 at about 6:00 p.m. near Baint Plywood factory at Siltara, Police Station Dharsiwa, accused/appellant assaulted Gautam Chandravansi with a country-made pistol attempting for taking his life and also the appellant was in illegal position without any valid license as required under Section 3 of the Arms Act injured him. On 24-07-1999 at about 7:30 p.m., the First Information Report (FIR) was lodged vide Ex.-P/6 by Gautam Chandravanshi which was registered as Crime No. 105/99 under Section 307 of the IPC against the appellant in which the lodger of FIR stated that about one month before his marriage was solemnized with Bharti Parghaniya. Before his marriage, the appellant came to him and told that he is in love with Bharti Parghaniya, do not marry her, the injured/victim (Gautam Chandravanshi) had not taken care thereof and asked him to leave him. On the date of incident, at about 6:00 p.m. when Gautam Chandranvansi was returning to his Village Murethi after his job near Baint Plywood Factory, Siltara, the appellant met him and told him that he warned him not to marry with Bharti, even then he married to Bharti, now he would kill him. Thereafter, he opened a fire by a firearm and attempted for taking his life, the palettes (smithereens) of the cartridge hit his abdomen. Gautam Chandranvansi shouted, thereafter, Dhanesh Yadav (PW-15), Iqbal (PW-14), Yogendra Solanki (PW-5) and others reached the spot on account of fire and his call. Thereafter, he opened a fire by a firearm and attempted for taking his life, the palettes (smithereens) of the cartridge hit his abdomen. Gautam Chandranvansi shouted, thereafter, Dhanesh Yadav (PW-15), Iqbal (PW-14), Yogendra Solanki (PW-5) and others reached the spot on account of fire and his call. The appellant ran from the spot, with the help of other villagers and two R.P.F. official the appellant was caught hold at village Sankara. Thereafter, Gautam Chandranvanshi along with Rajesh Pandey reached Police Station Dharsiwa and lodged the FIR which was registered. After the registration of the FIR, the victim was medically examined by Dr. S. B. Mangulker vide MLC report Ex.-P/SA. The doctor noticed in total 54 injuries including many small punctured wounds and many small abrasions, blood was oozing from the injuries at the outer wall of the abdomen, he has not noticed any injury in the internal part of the abdomen, multiple small iron-balls (smithereens, NJSZ) inserted in the wounds, the patient had removed some of them by his own hands and carried with him. The doctor opined that the injuries were fresh and caused by gunshot fire. The patient was referred for sonography and X-ray for further treatment and management. 3. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed under Sections 341, 307 of the IPC and 25, 27 of the Arms Act before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, who, in turn, committed the case to Court of Sessions, Raipur, the learned Additional Sessions Judge received the case on transfer and conducted the trial. The appellant was charged for the offence punishable under Sections 307 of the IPC and 25 of the Arms Act by the trial Judge on 12-11-1999. 4. In order to prove the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses in all. Statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code) in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecutions case and pleaded innocence and false implication in crime in question. 5. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record by impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. 6. 5. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record by impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. 6. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is as under:- (i) As deposed by Badri Prasad Chandranvanshi (PW-1) at para-4 that nobody was digging in the field, the appellant after removing soil from pit took out the country-made pistol and Ex.-P/2 is its seizure memo. This witness signed the documents at road. The Witness is near relative of the victim why the prosecution not took the signature of any independent witnesses especially when the place of recovery and preparation of documents was near the main road? (ii) Duklaha Prasad Chandravanshi (PW-2) is also near relative of the victim. In his presence clothes of the victim were seized vide Ex.P/3. Spot map and covering letter vide Ex.P-4 and Ex.P/5 were prepared. Duklaha Prasad Chandravanshi (PW-2) not stated that from where the police people brought the clothes of the victim and no statement was recorded of this witness. (iii) Goutam Chandranvanshi (PW-3) deposed in para-4 that before marriage he asked Bharti Parghania upon the alleged relation with the appellant, but Bharti Parghania replied that she is not having any relation with anybody. Why the prosecution not adduced Bharti Parghania as witness since she was material witness for the chain of commission of offence? (iv) Why Rajesh Pandey was not examined since he was a material witness who had taken the victim in his motorcycle from Village Sankara to Police Station? (v) Goutam Chandravanshi (PW-3) deposed in para-5 that appellant tried to fire second time, but he did not fire. At para-6 of the victim (sic) police people intimated his wife after the incident, then why she was not examined? (vi) Why the iron-balls which was given to the doctor by Goutam Chandravanshi (PW-3) is not seized and in absence of such seizure this fact becomes suspicious. (vii) As per statement of Goutam Chandravanshi (PW-3) at para-1 that witnesses were coming behind means they have not seen the incident. (viii) Yogendra Solanki (PW-5) deposed in para-3 that he had not seen the incident. (ix) Mohd. Iqbal Qureshi (PW-14) deposed that he does not know as to who caught hold the appellant means nobody saw the incident, nobody witnessed regarding the caught hold of the appellant. Mohd. (viii) Yogendra Solanki (PW-5) deposed in para-3 that he had not seen the incident. (ix) Mohd. Iqbal Qureshi (PW-14) deposed that he does not know as to who caught hold the appellant means nobody saw the incident, nobody witnessed regarding the caught hold of the appellant. Mohd. Iqbal Qureshi (PW-14) deposed in para-3 that his statement was recorded next day of incident, but this witness was examined on the same day which is not supported by this witness. (x) Dhanesh Yadav (PW-15) deposed in para 4 of his cross-examination that he is having photocopy of his statement, but he refused the suggestion of the defence when he is giving his statement at the instance of the victim. (xi) Dayalu (PW-7) is a hostile witness, he had not identified the appellant at the time of examination and he stated that name of the accused informed by Goutam Chandran-vanshi as Giridhari Yadav. At para-3, he deposed that Goutam Chandravanshi (PW-3) was all alone in the motorcycle, at the time of incident intensity of light was dim, but not dark. This witness had not seen who hit the fire. Since this is a material witness, he was present at the spot, there was low intensity of light, hence, his witnessing the incident was not admissible. (xii) Dilip (PW-8) stated at para-3 that in the evening incident took place when he met Goutam Chandravanshi (PW-3), there was dark. This witness identified the appellant at para-1. (xiii) As per contention of the appellant, the appellant was going to the Simga road, he was stopped and thereafter he was falsely implicated in the case, there was no specific evidence for gunshot fire. Dilip (PW-8) admitted in para-4 that he had not stopped the appellant. This witness is a material witnesses. Police not interrogated this witness which was necessary. (xiv) As per story of the prosecution, two R.P.F. people caught the appellant, but the prosecution has failed to establish the chain, Shrinivas Sharma (PW-10), Sub-Inspector, deposed that he caught the appellant handed him to villagers, he further deposed at para-5 that his statement was recorded at the same day. Police not interrogated this witness which was necessary. (xiv) As per story of the prosecution, two R.P.F. people caught the appellant, but the prosecution has failed to establish the chain, Shrinivas Sharma (PW-10), Sub-Inspector, deposed that he caught the appellant handed him to villagers, he further deposed at para-5 that his statement was recorded at the same day. (xv) Siddh Nath Singh (PW-11), Inspector in R.P.F., admitted in the para-3 that the place of incident is a public road and the place where the appellant was caught is not a public road, then why the other independent witnesses not saw the incident?; he also deposed at para-5 that he had not seen the appellant concealing the arm and after the incident the appellant was running until he was caught hold, then when he got an occasion to hide the country-made pistol in a pit of a field? (xvi) Brahmdev (PW-12), Head Constable who lodged the FIR, deposed in para-2 that the victim was not in comma condition, but he was in a state of fear, but at para-3 he deposed that Goutam Chandranvanshi (PW-3) had stated about the canwd . This witness not examined the other persons came along with Goutam Chandranvshi (PW-3), he simply recorded his name and address. He also admitted that there was no telephonic information, the name of Dayalu and Dilip is not mentioned in the FIR (Ex.-P/6). (xvii) Rajesh Pandey was not examined; wife of the victim was not examined for the motive and intention. (xviii) Dr. Saleem Parvez (PW-13) noticed no bone injury or fracture. (xix) Mohd. Tabju (PW-6) prosecution clerk denied the presentation of alleged arm in the office. Notification regarding Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act is not duly proved. (xx) As per report of F.S.L., Sagar vide Ex.P/13 sent article country-made pistol was reloaded with cartridge whose percussion cap was fired with this condition reloaded cartridge cannot fire instead it can be fired by putting live percussion cap means the arms was not in condition to fire. (xxi) Complainant stated regarding canwd in his court statement he used the word, but the F.S.L., Sagar is using word country-made pistol, there are suspicion in the nomenclature of the firearm. (xxii) Investigating Officer, Rajkumar Lalwani (PW-16) deposed at para-12 that he had not recorded the statement of Rajesh Pandey at para-13, he deposed that doctor not sent any bullet (NJSZ). (xxii) Investigating Officer, Rajkumar Lalwani (PW-16) deposed at para-12 that he had not recorded the statement of Rajesh Pandey at para-13, he deposed that doctor not sent any bullet (NJSZ). At para-1 he stated that there were search for blank cartridge at the spot but same was not traceable, but this fact may be mentioned in the case diary. He also deposed that near the place of incident, at the main road, there was betal shop but he did not recorded the statement of said shop-keeper. (xxiii) Intention is not proved in the present case. The gun was not identified. The appellant is falsely implicated, at the time of incident he was 24 years of age, now he is married person he remained in jail for about 11 months, there is no scientific report about the fire from pistol so seized. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that prosecution has failed to prove guilt against the appellant, the appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be acquitted of the charges. Written argument has also been filed on behalf of the appellant in support of the oral argument. On behalf of the appellant reliance is placed upon case law of Nanaka Bhilala vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, LAWS (MPH)-2013-3-131 MPWN-2013-2-12, in which the appellant was convicted under Section 307 of the IPC read with Section 25 (1 B)(b) of the Arms Act and suffered the sentence of imprisonment for a period of more than 12 years including the period of remission. High Court of M.P. instead the sentence awarded for life imprisonment, reduced the period of sentence already undergone by him which was more than 12 years. He further relied upon the case of Manish Purihit vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, LAWS (MPH)-2013-5-78 MPWN-2013-2-65, where High Court of M.P. holding that since the appellant was not present on the spot, no recovery has been made, acquitted the appellant from the charges of Section 109 read with Section 307/34 of IPC. He further relied upon the case of Manish Purihit vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, LAWS (MPH)-2013-5-78 MPWN-2013-2-65, where High Court of M.P. holding that since the appellant was not present on the spot, no recovery has been made, acquitted the appellant from the charges of Section 109 read with Section 307/34 of IPC. He also placed reliance upon the matter of Teman Yadav vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, LAWS (CHH)-2013-7-29 MPHC (CHHAT)-2014-1-9, where this Court acquitted the appellant of the charge framed under Section 307 of the IPC and convicted him only under Section 323 of the IPC since the injuries were simple in nature, appellant had no intention or knowledge to commit murder and allowed the appeal partly and the sentence of the period already undergone awarded to appellant. Another case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is Meena Bai vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, LAWS (MPH)-2013-7-63, where the High Court held that the victim is in a drunken condition, appellant is his wife, the victim told appellant that he would vacate the rented house where they lived together and shift in other house, to which appellant abused him and refused to go with him, on account of this, appellant splashed hot oil on the complainant and the complainant sustained burn injuries. On due consideration, looking to the nature of injuries. High Court of M.P. reduced the sentence from Section 307 of the IPC to Section 324 of the IPC and sentenced her for the period already undergone. He also placed reliance upon the matter of Lodhari Ram @ Tuisi vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, LAWS (CHH)-2000-12-4, where the High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed the appeal on account of non-examination of the eye-witnesses and held the statement of other witnesses as hear-say and inadmissible in evidence, and acquitted the appellant for the charges under Section 307 of the IPC. He further placed reliance upon the case of Sarju Prasad vs. State of Bihar, LAWS (SC)-1964-8-24 : AIR 1965 (SC) 843 , where Hon'ble the Supreme Court converted the sentence from Section 307 of the IPC to 324 of the IPC looking to the nature of the injuries and other attending circumstances and found it proper for extension of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, remanded the matter to the High Court for consideration and appropriate orders. Reliance was also placed upon the matter of Raj Pal vs. State of Haryana, LAWS (SC)-2007-4-147, where Hon'ble the Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the appellant as the appellant was convicted under Sections 302/34 and sentenced for life imprisonment, on close scrutiny, held that as the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants, benefit of doubt has to be given to the appellants. He also submitted that the case laws cited above are applicable to the facts of this case and are identical and on the basis of the cited case laws, the appellant may be acquitted of the charges framed against him. 7. On the other hand supporting the impugned judgment, it has been argued by the learned State counsel as it is proved from the statement of Goutam Chandranvanshi (PW-3) that the appellant hit him by gunshot fire on account of some circumstances appeared after his marriage with the background of alleged affair or attraction by the side of the appellant. The FIR is immediately lodged within one and a half hours- There was no question of misidentification, the appellant was caught hold by two R.P.F. Officers, they handed over him to the villagers and thereafter, police took custody of the appellant. As per disclosure statement, the country-made pistol recovered from a field hidden under the soil in a pit which was duly recovered vide Ex.-P/2. Dr. S.B. Mangulker (PW-17) supported the evidence of complainant and found gunshot injuries which were 54 in number though they are not up to internal part of the abdomen. Infliction of the gunshot fire by the appellant upon the victim shows his knowledge and intention that it may take away the life of victim. It is not the case that the appellant fired on other side and instantaneously the victim received the injuries. The F.S.L., Sagar gave its report vide Ex.-P/13 which duly supports the prosecutions story, as per opinion the country-made pistol is in working condition and they noticed the residue of fire prior to test in the barrel, thereby this report helps the story of the prosecution. There was no previous enmity, no cause for leaving the real culprit and falsely implicating the appellant. There was no previous enmity, no cause for leaving the real culprit and falsely implicating the appellant. A few months prior to the incident, before the marriage of the victim Goutam Chandravanshi (PW-3), the appellant approached him and instructed him not to marry with Bharti, as he was having love affair with Bharti. Even after that instruction, the victim married with same girl and in the light of such grudge on in a heat of anger for taking the life of victim, the appellant hit gunshot fire towards the victim. The victim received injuries at the abdomen. The appellant was not holding any valid licence as required under the provisions of Section 3 of the Arms Act. The trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence, minute discrepancies which does not affect the root of the case are not fatal for the prosecution. Non-examination of Bharti and Rajesh Pandey does not affect the fact of the case. The iron- balls/cartridge (NJKZ) was given to the doctor as in M.L.C. report vide Ex.-P/SA, if the same was not sent to the police or seized by the police, the case of the prosecution does not become false. The persons coming behind at the time of incident and if they actually did not see the incident, it does not create any suspicion upon the statement of Goutam Chandranvanshi (PW-3), his statement be valued independently. While appreciating the entire evidence, the trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant which is just and proper. Therefore, the appeal has no substance and the same may be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including impugned judgment. 9. Badri Prasad Chandravanshi (PW-1) is a witness of memorandum EX.-P/1 and seizure vide EX.-P/2 at the instance of the appellant. From inside the pit after removing the soil the appellant took out the country-made pistol which was seized. As per statement of Dukalha Chandranvanshi (PW-2), he is a witness for the seizure of clothes of the victim, spot map and covering memo EX.-P/3, EX.-P/4 and Ex.-P/5. Goutam Chandravanshi (PW-3) is complainant, he deposed in detail regarding the facts that one month prior to marriage, the appellant came to him and said that he is love with Bharti, you should not marry with her. Goutam Chandravanshi (PW-3) is complainant, he deposed in detail regarding the facts that one month prior to marriage, the appellant came to him and said that he is love with Bharti, you should not marry with her. The victim examined this fact with Bharti for which she refused for any such relation with the appellant, thereafter, marriage was solemnized and on the date of incident while the victim was going back to his home, the appellant met with the victim in the road, stopped him and told that even after his instruction, he had not acted as per wish of the appellant, hence he will kill him. Thereafter, the appellant hit the gunshot fire over him, he received injuries over the abdomen, he made a call, some Dayalu (PW-7), Dilip (PW-8), Iqbal (PW-14), Yogendra Solanki (PW-5), Pramod and other persons were coming from behind they and other R.P.F. people caught the appellant after some time while he was running. Then he was taken to Police Station Dharsiwa where the victim lodged the FIR and thereafter, the victim was taken to Dharsiwa Hospital and after his referral/shifting, he was admitted in the Medical College Hospital, Raipur where he was treated and remained for a few days. This witness was cross-examined at length, but he remained very firm, nothing could be elicited from this witness to discredit his statement even after the lengthy cross-examination. The report was lodged instantaneously within 1 and a half hours. The appellant was caught hold by the R.P.F. Officials. The victim was not having any enmity with the appellant. The appellant is resident of Bhatapara, whereas the victim is resident of Village Murethi, Police Station Dharsiwa. They both residing in a different places and distance. The appellant was caught hold after some time of the incident. The report is lodged. Evidentiary value of the statement of Goutam Chandranvanshi (PW-3) be valued on the basis of its own strength. For minor discrepancies or variations the credibility of the witness cannot be faded. I am of the view that the statement of Goutam Chandravanshi (PW-3) is truthful, credible and clinching. 10. Patwari Neelkanth Verma (PW-4) is a witness of spot map (Ex.-P/4) and memo (Ex-P/5). For minor discrepancies or variations the credibility of the witness cannot be faded. I am of the view that the statement of Goutam Chandravanshi (PW-3) is truthful, credible and clinching. 10. Patwari Neelkanth Verma (PW-4) is a witness of spot map (Ex.-P/4) and memo (Ex-P/5). Yogendra Solanki (PW-5) identified the appellant in the Court and deposed that he saw the appellant was held by the crowd and there were talks that the appellant fired from pistol in the abdomen to one person. The victim (Goutam Chandravanshi) belongs to village Murethi. Mohd. Tabaju (PW-6), prosecution Clerk proved the written order of the District Magistrate, Raipur (vide EX.-P/7) for the prosecution of the appellant under Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act. Dayalu (PW-7) is a witness, he heard the sound of fire, Goutam Chandravanshi came near him, blood was oozing from his abdomen, there were injuries, he told him that the bullet is fired, hold the person. He saw the person who fired gunshot was fleeing from the spot towards the field. Goutam Chandravanshi (PW-3) stated the name of that person as Girdhari Yadav. Though this witness was declared hostile, but he supported the prosecutions case on many counts. Dilip (PW-8) is a witness, he deposed that as he heard the sound of the fire, he saw Goutam Chandravanshi (PW-3) in motorcycle shouting that bullet hit on him, hold the person, he saw the person running from the spot then he and others followed the appellant and near village Sankara they caught hold the appellant. This witness identified the appellant in the Court and stated that he was same man who was caught hold by them. Laxminath Chandravanshi (PW-9) is a witness for the memorandum vide Ex.-P/1 and EX.-P/2. The country-made pistol was recovered after disclosure statement of the appellant and seized at the instance of appellant along with the cartridge. Shriniwas Sharma (PW-10) and Siddhnath Singh (PW-11), R.P.F. officials, at the time of incident they are going towards Village Mandhar, they heard a call of a boy who said that he received gunshot injury, they saw the iron-balls (NJS) in the abdomen of that boy. Shriniwas Sharma (PW-10) and Siddhnath Singh (PW-11), R.P.F. officials, at the time of incident they are going towards Village Mandhar, they heard a call of a boy who said that he received gunshot injury, they saw the iron-balls (NJS) in the abdomen of that boy. They saw a person running towards the field, then they attempted to caught hold the appellant and other persons were also attempting for holding him from the other side, they requested for help from the villagers, they caught hold the appellant finally near one abandoned house. He was not having pistol at that time they handed him over to the villagers and left for their duty. Head Constable Brahmdev Singh (PW-12) recorded the FIR and sent the complainant/victim for medical examination vide EX.-P/8. Dr. Saleem Parvez (PW-13) noticed no bone injury or fracture in X-ray report vide Ex.-P/9. Mohd. Iqbal Qureshi (PW-14) upon hearing a sound idMks&idMks he came out from his office and saw that a boy was running towards field followed by some villagers, he also found Goutam Chandranvanshi (PW-3) present there who received gunshot injury in his abdomen, blood was oozing, Goutam Chandranvanshi (PW-3) told him that the boy fired at him and he was fleeing from the spot. This witness too attempted to catch that boy, villagers and other people caught the appellant. People informed the Police Station, Police came and he was taken into custody and left for further investigation. This witness too identified the appellant in the Court, the same was corroborated by Dhanesh Yadav (PW-15). Rajkumar Lalwani (PW-16) had written the memorandum vide Ex.-P/1 and at the instance of the appellant, he seized the country-made pistol along with blank cartridge vide EX.-P/2, he also seized clothes of the victim vide Ex.-P/3, he sent these clothes for F.S.L examination vide Ex.-P/10. Report of the F.S.L. is Ex.-P/11. He forwarded the seized country-made pistol including the blank cartridge and clothes for F.S.L. examination vide Ex.-P/12. The F.S.L. after conducting the necessary examination gave its report vide Ex.-P/13. This witness also recorded the statement of the witnesses and prepared spot map vide Ex.-P/14 and arrest memo of the appellant vide Ex.-P/15. Dr. Report of the F.S.L. is Ex.-P/11. He forwarded the seized country-made pistol including the blank cartridge and clothes for F.S.L. examination vide Ex.-P/12. The F.S.L. after conducting the necessary examination gave its report vide Ex.-P/13. This witness also recorded the statement of the witnesses and prepared spot map vide Ex.-P/14 and arrest memo of the appellant vide Ex.-P/15. Dr. S. B. Mangulker (PW-17) who conducted the medical examination of the complainant/victim on the same day noticed small punctured wound at the wall of the abdomen, abrasions, blood was oozing, injuries were about 54 in number, he also saw the small iron-balls (NJS) inserted in the wounds, few of them was taken out by the complainant/victim and he came with those, he opined that the injuries were fresh and caused by country-made pistol, he gave its report vide Ex.-P/8A. 11. No defence witness has been examined on behalf of the appellant before the trial Court. The defence of the appellant before the trial Court was of denial. He denied each and every circumstance and pleaded false implication. 12. Memorandum and seizure was duly supported by the prosecution witnesses including the Investigating Officer. In totality, there are no suspicion over the said seizure which conducted at the instance of appellant. The country-made pistol along with cartridge recovered in hidden condition inside the pit after removing of soil from it, it shows that though the place is open, but no one can know about the existence of said pistol. I am of the view that the prosecution has duly proved that by the disclosure statement of the appellant at his instance the country-made pistol recovered in a hidden condition from a pit which was not appearing in open condition. The said pistol and pre loaded cartridge was sent for chemical examination. As per the opinion of the expert, vide Ex.-P/13, article A1 - country-made pistol applicable for 12 bore cartridges was found in a running condition, they noticed the residue of earlier fire in its barrel, it eliminates the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that reloaded cartridge was fired cartridge, the empty cartridge was not recovered, as per the statement of the Investigating Officer, they attempted near the place of incident, but they had not been successful in getting this one. The reloaded cartridge was also examined and since it was not a live cartridge, no fire can be done from the said reloaded cartridge again, it is quite proper, it cannot create any suspicion as advanced by the appellant. 13. On close scrutiny of the evidence, the medical evidence is duly supported. As per statement of many witnesses, the appellant is the same person who was caught hold from the spot by two R.P.F. officers and many other independent witnesses. They also supported the evidence of the complainant. I am of the view that the appellant is the person who met earlier with the victim, instructed not to marry with Bharti and when the victim married with Bharti, for the said grudge and reaction thereof the appellant opened fire saying that he will kill him. The victim received many small injuries about 54 in number on the abdomen. The iron-balls (NJSZ) inserted in the wounds, blood was oozing out, all these go to show that the appellant fired with intention and knowledge to take the life of Goutam Chandravanshi (PW-3) for no reason else than he was in ex-parte love with the Bharti, on account of this for taking revenge as to why he married with Bharti, the appellant hit him through gunshot fire. In the report word canwd is there, whereas the country-made pistol is seized, I do not see it a material variation since on account of fear and other changing conditions, only the barrel might have been seen and without seeing length of barrel a person may depose it as canwd instead of country-made pistol, but since both are firearm, there was no previous enmity, there is instantaneous report, many independent witnesses caught hold the appellant, they saw the victim injured, only the word canwd does not effect the case adversely. 14. It is argued that non-examination of Bharti and Rajesh Pandey make the prosecution- s case suspicious. For proving the present case, there was no necessity to examine Bharti as required under Section 5 of the Evidence Act that evidence may be given on fact in issue and relevant facts. The issue before the trial Court was whether the appellant hit gunshot fire to the victim with an intention or knowledge to take his life and whether the appellant was having any licence to carry such arm. The issue before the trial Court was whether the appellant hit gunshot fire to the victim with an intention or knowledge to take his life and whether the appellant was having any licence to carry such arm. Other undergoing facts are not relevant facts and also they were not questioned in the issue. I hold that non-examination of Bharti does not effect the case adversely. So far as non-examination of Rajesh Pandey is concerned, he is witness of the part that he took the injured/victim upto to Police Station Dharsiwa. Again, this is not a material or substantive fact, this being corroborative fact, I am of the view that this does not affect the case of the prosecution otherwise. 15. In the present case, the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is credible and clinching. There was no reason for false implication, even there was no time to conceal any real assailant and to falsely implicate the appellant. The appellant also failed to offer explanation as to how he was found at the place of incident and as to how at his instance the country-made pistol and fired cartridge was recovered in a hidden condition. In absence of any explanation, I hold that this is an additional circumstance against the appellant. I also hold that the chain of circumstances are complete and acceptable, there are no reason to disbelieve the statement of injured witness. Minor discrepancies and variations in the statement of witnesses are natural, they do not lead the entire case towards any suspicion. 16. The case laws cited on behalf of the appellant having different facts, they are not similar to the facts, circumstances and evidence in totality of the present case. I hold that the cited case laws do not support the appellant as to lead any conclusion in his favour. 17. In view of the aforesaid factual position and the material available on record, I am of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the trial Court convicting the accused/appellant as described above are fully concordant with the evidence of the witnesses and no interference therewith is warranted, that being so, the judgment impugned is hereby affirmed and the appeal being without any substance is hereby dismissed. 18. 18. As the accused/appellants is on bail, his bail bond stands cancelled and he is directed to be taken into custody forthwith for serving out the remainder of the sentence imposed on him. Appeal dismissed.