JUDGMENT : Present appeal assails the judgment and order dated 10/12/2008, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 5th Additional Sessions Court, Surat, in Sessions Case No. 218 of 2006, whereby, while acquitting the original accused No. 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 307 r/w. 114 and 504 r/w. 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, 'the IPC') and Sections 25(1)(a) and (b) of the Arms Act, 1959 (for brevity, 'the Arms Act'), the appellant herein-original accused No. 1 came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 307 and 188 of the IPC and Sections 25(1)(a) and (b) of the Arms Act. For the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for ten years and a fine of Rs.500/and in default of payment of fine, to undergo, further simple imprisonment (SI) for ten days, whereas, for the offence punishable under Section 188 of the IPC, to undergo SI for one month and for the offence punishable under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, to undergo RI for five years and a fine of Rs.200/and in default of payment of fine, to undergo, further SI for seven days and under Section 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act, to undergo RI for one year and a fine of Rs.200/and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further SI for seven days. The appellant-accused No. 1 was also convicted in a Sessions Case No. 224 of 2001 and hence, the sentences imposed in the present case (i.e. Sessions Case No. 218 of 2006) and in Sessions Case No. 224 of 2001 for different offences, were ordered to run concurrently, besides, giving benefit of set off. 2. Before proceeding with the final hearing of the matter, Mr. K. L. Pandya, the learned advocate for the respondent-State, made available for perusal the jail report of the appellant-accused No. 1, while the appellant-accused No. 1 was released on temporary bail, twice he jumped the bail and absconded. He submitted that in the year 2004, he absconded for 642 days, whereas, while he was enlarged on temporary bail in the year 2014, he again jumped the bail and since then, he is absconding. 3. He submitted that in the year 2004, he absconded for 642 days, whereas, while he was enlarged on temporary bail in the year 2014, he again jumped the bail and since then, he is absconding. 3. Filtering the unnecessary details the facts of the prosecution case are that on 10/06/2006 at about 22:15 hours, the accused, went for watching a movie at Valentine Cinema and while asking for the tickets at the ticket counter No. 2, ticket clerk namely Baba Ketan Sahu, denied of having any seat available since it was housefull, due to which, the accused, allegedly, got angry and in the aid and abetment of each other, started quarrelling with the said ticket clerk in public and abused him. The accused No. 1 allegedly attacked the said ticket clerk with an unlicensed gun possessed by him and shot fire at him and thereby, attempted to commit murder. Thus, the accused committed the alleged offence, for which a complaint came to be lodged against them. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are, hereinafter, referred to as per their original status. 3.1 Pursuant to the complaint, investigation was carried out. After investigation, chargesheet was filed and as the case was triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed to the Sessions Court at Surat. The trial Court framed charge against the accused, which was read over to them. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the prosecution produced oral as well as documentary evidence. In order to bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined following witnesses and also produced several documentary evidence, as under:- ORAL EVIDENCE S. N. Name of Witness Exh. 1 PW1 Dr. Rohit Balubhai Bhingadiya, MO 19 2 PW2 Dr. Piyush Krushnakumar Khanna, MO 22 3 PW3 Bhupendrasing Singara Sinh, complainant 27 4 PW4 Baba Ketan Kailashchandra Sahu 31 5 PW5 Dineshbhai Manharbhai Patel 32 6 PW6 Sanjay Desai Pradhan 35 7 PW7 Hasam Abdul Kadar Raheman 37 8 PW8 Jay Prakash Arjun Yadav 38 9 PW9 Brijesh Narsinh Hala 39 10 PW10 Vajesinh Gorkhu, PSO 41 11 PW11 Satyapalsinh Mahobbatsinh, Police Constable 51 12 PW12 Mahendrasinh Ratansinh Rathod, PI, IO 52 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE S. N. Document Exh. 1 Treatment Certificate of Baba Ketan 23 2 Complaint 28 3 Seizure Panchnama of the accused 29 4 Seizure Panchnama of accused-Ranjit 30 5 Panchnama of place of offence 33 6 Panchnama as to physical condition and arrest of the accused 34 7 Seizure Panchnama of pistol and the cartridge 36 8 Seizure Panchnama of pistol 40 9 Seizure Panchnama of clothes of the injured 43 10 Muddamal Despatch Note 54 11 Permission under the Arms Act 55 12 Copy of Notification as to prohibition of use of weapon 56 13 Acknowledgment of receipt of muddamal 57 14 FSL Report as to place of offence 58 15 Copy of extract of Station Diary 42 16 Treatment Certificate of accused No. 2-Ranjit 21 17 Treatment Certificate of accused No. 2-Yuvrajsinh 22 18 Forwarding letter of FSL 61 19 Biological Analysis Report 62 20 Serological Report 63 21 Yadi as to recording DD of the victim 83 22 DD of the victim 84 23 Medical papers of the victim 25 3.2 At the end of the trial, after recording the Further Statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, ‘the Code’) and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned trial Judge concluded as aforesaid, by the impugned judgment and order, giving rise to prefer the present appeal by accused No. 1. 4. Heard Mr. Feroz H. Pathan, the learned advocate for the appellant-original accused No. 1 and Mr. K. L. Pandya, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 4.1 The submissions made by the learned advocate for the accused are dealt with simultaneously in the following paragraphs. 5. Whereas, Mr. Pandya, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State, supported the impugned judgment and order and submitted that the same having been passed in accordance with law, does not call for any interference. It is submitted that the prosecution has successfully proved the case against the accused No. 1 beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Judge, after taking into consideration all the aspects of the matter, has come to such a conclusion, which is just and proper. It is submitted that the prosecution has successfully proved the case against the accused No. 1 beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Judge, after taking into consideration all the aspects of the matter, has come to such a conclusion, which is just and proper. He, taking this Court to the entire oral as well as the documentary evidence on record, submitted that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt as almost all the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and the documentary evidence also find corroboration with the same. He further submitted that there may be some contradictions in the evidence adduced by the prosecution, however, the fact remains that the offence had been committed by the accused, which is proved by the substantial evidence on record and accordingly, for minor contradictions, the whole case of the prosecution, which is otherwise proved beyond doubt, cannot be discarded or disbelieved. He also submitted that this appears to be the second offence of the present appellant-accused No. 1 as it has come on record that in Sessions Case No. 224 of 2001, also he was convicted. Moreover, by use of unlicensed gun, he attempted to commit the murder of a person and thereby, tried to snatch away life of a person. Moreover, he submitted that when the learned trial Judge has dealt with each and every aspect of the matter minutely and for coming to such a conclusion, plausible reasons have been given, this Court may not interfere in appeal. Making above submissions, he requested to dismiss the present appeal as having no merits. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned advocates for the parties and also gone through the evidence on record and re-appreciated and reevaluated the same on the touchstone of the latest decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. 6.1 The learned advocate for the accused has vehemently submitted that referring to the deposition of PW3 Bhupendrasing Singara Sinh, the Security guard at the Valentine Cinema, the complainant at exh. 27, in the examination-in-chief, he has narrated the fact that when the incident in question had occurred, at the ticket counter No. 1, one Pradipbhai was sitting, at ticket counter No. 2, Baba Ketan Sahu and at ticket counter No. 3 one Tejas were there. However, if the complaint at exh. 27, in the examination-in-chief, he has narrated the fact that when the incident in question had occurred, at the ticket counter No. 1, one Pradipbhai was sitting, at ticket counter No. 2, Baba Ketan Sahu and at ticket counter No. 3 one Tejas were there. However, if the complaint at exh. 28 is perused, which has been lodged by this witness, this fact has not been disclosed by the complainant and accordingly, this is nothing but the improvement, which is fatal to the case of the prosecution. He further, drawing attention to the cross-examination of this witness (complainant), submitted that the complainant has admitted in his cross-examination that, two persons had approached the ticket counter (No. 2) and were talking with Baba Ketan Sahu and at that time he was managing the public and the said version is also an improvement. The learned advocate for the accused further submitted that the complainant has, in his cross-examination, admitted that at the relevant point of time, he caught one person near the gate of the Valentine Cinema, however, he found nothing objectionable in his hands and so far as the second person is concerned, he was caught by the public, in whose hands also, he had found nothing objectionable. Thus, if the complaint at exh. 28 is considered, all these can be said to be the great and vital contradictions, which the learned trial Judge has failed to consider. Moreover, the complainant has also narrated in the cross-examination that when that person (accused No. 1) had crossed his hand through window, he was not watching and thus, the story put forward by the complainant of he having seen the accused No. 1, is not believable. Moreover, the complainant has also narrated in the cross-examination that when that person (accused No. 1) had crossed his hand through window, he was not watching and thus, the story put forward by the complainant of he having seen the accused No. 1, is not believable. 6.1.1 The above contradictions may be prima facie, appearing to be vital, however, in fact, two persons namely Yuvrajsinh Sardarsinh Parmar and Ranjitsinh Narubha Rathod, the original accused No.1 and the accused No. 2, respectively, had come to the theater and allegedly quarrelled with the injured booking clerk who was sitting at the ticket counter No. 2 and also fired and both had been caught as referred above and then, after informing the police, handed over both the accused to them from the place of incident and the said facts have been satisfactorily and by trustworthy evidence proved and the learned trial Judge has dealt with the same at length and considering the said aspect when the aforesaid specific evidence has been forthcoming on record, in my view, the aforesaid minor contradiction has rightly not been taken into consideration by the learned trial Judge. 6.2 The learned advocate for the accused has also drawn attention of this Court upon the deposition of PW1 Dr. Rohit Balubhai Bhingadiya, the Medical Officer, at exh. 19, who had examined both the accused and submitted that he has admitted that the injuries sustained by the accused were appeared to be by the hard and blunt substance. It is the case of the prosecution that so far as the accused No. 2 is concerned, he was caught by the public came for watching the movie, whereas, the accused No. 1 is stated to have caught by the complainant and the public had beaten him up but the said story of beating by the public is not believable for the reason that as per the doctor, they had sustained the injuries by a hard and blunt substance and naturally, the people who come to watch the movie, do not carry such things with them and accordingly, it appears that the security personnel had beaten them up and hence, the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. 6.2.1 There appears no substance in the aforesaid submission of the learned advocate for the accused for the reason that if, for the sake of argument it is believed that the security personnel had beaten the accused, then also the said action of the security personnel appears to be natural in the event of firing had taken place at the place of incident, allegedly at the instance of the accused No. 1 and in the quarrel, one booking clerk namely Baba Ketan Sahu had sustained severe injuries. Moreover, if that was the case, there appears nothing on record to show that the accused persons had agitated the said issue by way of filing any complaint or had taken recourse to the remedy available to them under the law, against the said security personnel for such action of beating them. 6.3 Further, the learned advocate for the accused, drawing attention to the deposition of PW2 Dr. Piyush Krushnakumar Khanna, the Medical Officer, who had examined Baba Ketan Sahu, the injured, who was controlling the ticket counter No. 2, at exh. 22 and submitted that this doctor has admitted in his examination-in-chief that the victim had not given the history but the person who was accompanied with him had given the history and accordingly, the learned trial Court has committed error in considering this important aspect, which creates doubt as to whether the correct history was given by that person. Moreover, this doctor, in his cross-examination, has admitted that the victim had received the bullet injury on his left shoulder and the bullet was found from his stomach for which, the prosecution has failed to prove the same. Moreover, this doctor has quite surprisingly admitted in the cross-examination that another injury namely CLW, received by the victim on his stomach, was not the injury sustained by the bullet but it might have caused by a hard substance blow or may be due to falling from height on a hard substance. He submitted that it is also admitted by this doctor that he could not say surely the actual cause of CLW (injury), sustained by the victim. Thus, the above creates doubt in the prosecution case and the prosecution has not proved this aspect beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly also, the accused deserves the benefit of doubt. 6.3.1 Though it is the fact that Dr. Piyush Krushnakumar Khanna, in his deposition at exh. Thus, the above creates doubt in the prosecution case and the prosecution has not proved this aspect beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly also, the accused deserves the benefit of doubt. 6.3.1 Though it is the fact that Dr. Piyush Krushnakumar Khanna, in his deposition at exh. 22, has deposed that history was given by the person who had accompanied with injured Baba Ketan Sahu and not by Baba Ketan Sahu himself but in his examination-in-chief, the very doctor has deposed that patient was unconscious when he had examined him. He has further deposed that for preternatural respiration, a pipe was inserted through his neck. His blood pressure and pulses could not be measured and that is why he was immediately shifted for operation and ten bottles of blood had been called for. For assistance during operation, Dr. Jashvant Patel, who was an expert of heart and lungs, was also called by telephonic message. On examining the patient, there appeared an incised wound on left side shoulder from which, blood was oozing out and there appeared burn injury on the skin at the wound. Looking to the wound, it was found to have been caused by some fire arm from pointblank range of about one or two feet distance. There could be seen entry only and no exit point of the wound. On further examining the patient, below the ribs on right side, there was blood clotting in an area 4 to 5 c.m. and on external examination, there could be sensed a thing lying into the body. Under the above circumstances, naturally, history must have been given by the person accompanied but the fact remains that the injured is not the only eyewitness to the incident but the complainant was also the eyewitness to the incident in question and hence, there appears no substance in the above submission made by the learned advocate for the appellant-accused No. 1. It has also submitted by the learned advocate for the accused that the bullet which was alleged to have entered in the body had not come out making hole/puncture in the body and the case of the prosecution appears doubtful but the said submission also appears to be without any merits more particularly, when it has come on record that on ticket window No. 2, the injured was sitting and issuing tickets and when, at the point blank distance the fire was made at the upper part of the left shoulder which entered into the body and it could be removed only by operation from the part below the right side ribs and thus, it is quite natural that when the bullet had remained in the body, there is no question of hole or puncture through which, the bullet would come out as submitted by the learned advocate for the appellant. Referring to the deposition of PW4 Baba Ketan Sahu, the injured, at exh. 31, he has identified the accused and has supported the case of the prosecution in toto and there is no reason to disbelieve his deposition as he was the immediate sufferer of the incident in question and can be said to be the eyewitness also. 6.4 Moreover, referring cross-examination of PW4, the injured, the learned advocate for the accused submitted that it has been admitted by this witness that prior to the recording of his evidence, he was sitting in the Court room and had visited the Court premises about thrice prior to recording of his evidence. 6.4.1 I have perused the deposition of this witness (PW4) carefully, more particularly, the cross-examination. It appears that in fact, in the cross-examination, this injured witness has specifically deposed that when the deposition of another witness was going on, though he was in the Court compound, but was not in the Court room and was sitting outside, in the cycle stand situated in the Court compound and thus, there appears no substance in the above submission made by the learned advocate for the accused, more particularly, when the injured has clearly supported the case of the prosecution and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. 6.5 It has also been argued that so far as the offence under the Arms Act is concerned, no ballistic opinion has been forthcoming on the record. 6.5 It has also been argued that so far as the offence under the Arms Act is concerned, no ballistic opinion has been forthcoming on the record. There appears no substance in the said submission because referring to the document at exh. 60 and the result of the examination of pistol, which has been examined by the expert is on record and in my view, it is nothing but the report of the ballistic expert, which had completely supported the case of the prosecution at all fours. 6.6 Thus, in the aforesaid view of the matter, in the considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution has successfully proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Judge has rightly considered and evaluated the evidence on record and that, the learned trial Judge has committed no error, which requires interference at the hands of this Court, more particularly, when for the findings and conclusion of conviction and sentence, plausible reasons have been given. Moreover, the trial Court, while considering the evidence on record, has very elaborately discussed the evidence adduced before it. Further, the learned advocate for the accused is not in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary view in the matter or that the approach of the Court below is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the Court below has ignored the material evidence on record. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the Court below was completely justified in passing impugned judgment and order. 6.7 At this juncture, the conduct of the present appellant-accused No. 1 cannot be lose sight of and as submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, observed in the earlier part of this judgment, the present appellant-accused No. 1, while released on bail in the year 2004, he remained absconding, for 642 days and thereafter, since 2014, he is absconding, jumping the bail till date and has not contacted even his lawyer. Moreover, in another case being Sessions Case No. 224 of 2001, he was also reported to be convicted for which, he was also imposed the sentence of imprisonment of life and thus, the present one is the second offence of the appellant-accused No. 1 and accordingly, the conduct of the accused speaks a volume against him. 7. Moreover, in another case being Sessions Case No. 224 of 2001, he was also reported to be convicted for which, he was also imposed the sentence of imprisonment of life and thus, the present one is the second offence of the appellant-accused No. 1 and accordingly, the conduct of the accused speaks a volume against him. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, present appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The impugned judgment and order dated 10/12/2008, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 5th Additional Sessions Court, Surat, in Sessions Case No. 218 of 2006, is hereby confirmed. The appellant-accused No. 1 is absconding and hence, Non-bailable Warrant is directed to be issued against him. Registry to return the R&P to the trial Court forthwith. Appeal dismissed.