Judgment Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J. These appeals are directed against judgment and order dated April 25, 2006 and April 26, 2006 respectively passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tenth Court at Alipore, District 24 Parganas (South), in Sessions Trial No.2(7) of 2001. One Biswajit Halder, son of Sudangshu Halder, a resident of 13, Bowli Mondal Road, Kolkata – 700 026, lodged a written complaint with Charu Market Police Station that on October 2, 2000 at about 6. 30 a.m when he was brushing his tooth on the verandah of their house, his brother Surojit Halder alias Suro was standing by his side. At that time, three persons, namely, Bhombal Chatterjee alias Dipak, Dom Prodip alias Prodip Mallick and Ratan arrived in front of their house and called Surojit to come down as they had some business with him. Biswajit Halder went inside of the house to put his dress, but when he again came to the verandah, he could not find his brother, Surojit, in the home. He got suspicious and called Ganesh Chakraborty, the prosecution’s witness no.4 and Khokan Halder, the prosecution’s witness no.5 and with them went to search Surojit. They noticed that the accused persons along with the victim, Surojit, were proceeding towards fruit market in Tollygunge side. All on a sudden there were some hot exchange of words between the accused persons and Surojit and the accused Bhombal Chatterjee alias Dipak took out a pistol from his waist and shot at Surojit from point blank range. Surojit fell down on the ground. Biswajit and his associates raised alarm. Dom Pradip pointed out a revolver to them and threatened them not to move from the place. Thereafter, the accused persons left the place. Biswajit took Surojit to hospital. Surojit gave statement to the attending physician at the emergency ward that he was shot at by Bhombal Chatterjee alias Dipak. Subsequently, Surojit succumbed to his injury. Charu Market Police Station case no.149 dated October 2, 2000 was registered. The accused/appellants were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as, also, under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution’s witness no.3, Biswajit Halder, the prosecution’s witness no.4, Ganesh Chakraborty and the prosecution’s witness no.5, Khokan Halder, were eyewitnesses to the incident. The accused/appellants were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as, also, under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution’s witness no.3, Biswajit Halder, the prosecution’s witness no.4, Ganesh Chakraborty and the prosecution’s witness no.5, Khokan Halder, were eyewitnesses to the incident. They have categorically narrated the incident that Dipak Chatterjee alias Bhombal shot at Surojit in front of Saraswati Mulibansh shop, 93 A, Tolligunge Road, Kolkata 26. The defence was complete denial. It was alleged that they were falsely implicated in this case. In the Test Identification Parade, however, the accused persons were identified. The prosecution’s witness no.12, Dr. Rahul Mukherjee, was the Medical Officer of S.S.K.M. Hospital. On the date of occurrence, he examined the victim, Surojit Halder, who was brought by Biswajit Halder at 6.45 a.m. He stated that the injured victim informed him that he was shot at by Dipak Chatterjee alias Bhombal associated with Dom Pradip near the fruit market at Tollygunj Road opposite to Saraswati Mulibansh shop. Mr. Mukhopadhyay, the learned advocate for the appellant asked us to disbelieve the prosecution’s witness no.12, Dr. Rahul Mukherjee. Rightly, in our view, the learned Sessions Judge accepted the version of the prosecution’s witness no.12 inasmuch as it was never suggested that they had any previous animosity with the said doctor. He had no business to make incorrect statement before the court being an independent person. It was rightly found by the learned Sessions Judge that the prosecution’s witness no.15 suggested that the injuries were sufficient to cause the death of the victim due to gun shot. The prosecution’s witness no.15, who conducted the postmortem examination, stated that due to effect of the gun shot injury, which was ante-mortem and homicidal in nature, the victim succumbed. It is pertinent to mention that the offending weapons were recovered at the instance of the accused Dipak Chatterjee alias Bhombal. The Forensic and Ballistic Expert, the prosecution’s witness no.17, Dr. Asok Bandhyapadhya, examined the offending weapons and found that it was in working condition. There is no iota of doubt that the accused persons assembled with common intention and committed murder of Surojit, who was only 18 years old on the date of occurrence. Rightly, therefore, they were convicted under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code as, also, under Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. There is no iota of doubt that the accused persons assembled with common intention and committed murder of Surojit, who was only 18 years old on the date of occurrence. Rightly, therefore, they were convicted under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code as, also, under Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. Thus, the learned judge sentenced the accused/appellants, Bhombal Chatterjee alias Dipak and Prodip Mallick alias Pradip for offences under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and directed them to suffer imprisonment for life. The accused no.1, Bhombal Chatterjee alias Dipak was, also, found guilty of offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act and he was convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for four years. However, it was directed both the sentences would run concurrently. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and order. There is no illegality or impropriety in pronouncing the impugned judgment and order by the learned Sessions Judge. There is no merit in the appeals. The appeals are, thus, dismissed. The office is directed to send down the lower court records immediately. Shib Sadhan Sadhu, J. : I agree.