JUDGMENT : AJIT SINGH, J. 1. The sole appellant - Mehboob Hussain has been convicted and sentenced as follows:- (i) Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for two years; (ii) Under Section 457 of the Indian Penal Code rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for one year; (iii) Under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for six months; (iv) Under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code simple imprisonment for 6 months and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for one month; (v) Under Section 27 of the Arms Act, rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for one month. All the jail sentences are directed to run concurrently. 2. The victim of the incident was Sub-Inspector Kartik Barman, aged about 44/45 years. He was the Platoon Commandant of 2nd Assam Police Task Force stationed at Rangia Police Station whereas the appellant served as constable in the said platoon. 3. According to the prosecution case, on 04/08/1994, Sub- Inspector Bipul Sarma of Rangia Police Station lodged an FIR (Exhibit-17) in his police station stating inter-alia that at about 1 a.m., the appellant had cut the chain of door of a magazine room of platoon barrack and took away the revolver allotted to Kartik Barman. He then entered into the room where Kartik Barman was sleeping and shot him on his head. Thereafter, he also tried commit suicide by shooting himself on his head. On this FIR, Case No.287/94 was registered for offences under Sections 457/380/302/309 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 (3) of the Arms Act. The dead body of Kartik Barman was sent for post mortem examination and the appellant was sent to hospital for treatment and from there he was shifted to the Gauhati Medical College and Hospital for better treatment. The appellant was treated by Dr. Jakir Hussain whose medico-legal report is Exhibit-13. The report was signed by Dr. Purajit Choudhury (PW-9). The report revealed that appellant's case was of suspected suicide. He was, therefore, arrested after he was cured and then sent to judicial custody. 4. The appellant was treated by Dr. Jakir Hussain whose medico-legal report is Exhibit-13. The report was signed by Dr. Purajit Choudhury (PW-9). The report revealed that appellant's case was of suspected suicide. He was, therefore, arrested after he was cured and then sent to judicial custody. 4. Sub-Inspector Bipul Sarma commenced the investigation of incident during which he seized the following articles from the place of occurrence:- (i) Vide Exhibit 6:- mosquito net, pillow with cover, .38 bullet, one blood stained small towel, one fired bullet and one pair of sandal; (ii) Vide Exhibit 8:- one envelope containing one handkerchief, one greeting card and a letter written by M.Kalita, one wire cutting plash, one steel chain used for locking door, one sealed packet of 12 rounds of .38 revolver, one revolver cover, one arm pouch, one tin box containing torch light, hand glove and one riffle chain and one lock with two keys. (iii) Vide Exhibit 9:- one .38 revolver containing 4 nos. of live ammunition, 2 chambers of empty bullet; (iv) Vide Exhibit 10:- 6 nos. of .38 ammunitions. The seized revolver and ammunitions were sent to the Forensic Laboratory. 5. Upen Bora (PW-10) the then Senior Scientific Officer of the Ballistic, Forensic Science Laboratory, Guwahati, conducted physical and chemical analysis of the .38 caliber revolver(Exhibit-A), one .38 caliber cartridge (Exhibit-B) and two .38 caliber empty fired cartridge cases (Exhibit-C-1 and C-2). Test firing was done in the laboratory through Exhbit A revolver and test fired cartridges of Exhibit-A and Exhibit-C-1 and C-2 were compared. After comparing, it was found that the fring pin impression and breach face marks of test fired cartridges and that of Exhibit-C-1 and C-2 were similar. Hence, he opined that Exhibit-C-1 and C-2 were fired through Exhibit-A revolver. His report in this regard is Exhibit 14. 6. Dr. Pratap Chandra Sarma (PW-1), the then Professor and Head of Forensic Medicine Department, Gauhati Medical College and Hospital, conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Kartik Barman. He found one entry wound of bullet circular in shape with irregular inverted margin surrounded by abrasion color 0.2 cm wide present on the left cheek 4 cm outer angle of the left eye. The size of the entry wound is 0.8 cm x skull cavity deep. He found one entry wound of bullet circular in shape with irregular inverted margin surrounded by abrasion color 0.2 cm wide present on the left cheek 4 cm outer angle of the left eye. The size of the entry wound is 0.8 cm x skull cavity deep. The bullet had passed through the scalp, left temporal bone, through the brain to give rise to exit wound on the right side of head perforating the right temporal bone. The exit wound measured 1.5 cm x 1 cm size with lacerated and everted margins on the right side of head. 6 cm back to the right ear and 5 cm above and back to root of right mastoid process. According to him, death was instantaneous as a result of rifled gun injury on the head. His post mortem examination report is Exhibit-1. 7. Since while investigation, Investigating Officer Bipul Sarma died before completing the investigation, further investigation was done by Nomal Chandra Gogoi (PW-8), who finally submitted the charge sheet against the appellant. 8. During trial, the appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence. He stated during his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that he did not know as to how the incident took place and only regained his consciousness in the hospital. However, the trial court relying upon the evidence of the prosecution convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. 9. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that there is no eye witness and the entire prosecution is entirely based on conjectures and surmises. It has also been argued that though the medical report suggests that Kartik Barman died due to rifle gun injury, no rifle was seized and instead a revolver was seized by the police which falsifies the prosecution case. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has on the other hand submitted that the trial court has rightly convicted the appellant. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing record, we are of the view that the trial court has committed no mistake in convicting the appellant. 11. On the fateful night, Constable Mahikanta Baruah (PW-2), Constable Nirmal Chandra Kalita (PW-3), Constable Nur Zamal Ali (PW-4) and Pabitra Baroi (PW-5) were attached to the same platoon with the appellant and they were present in the barrack. 11. On the fateful night, Constable Mahikanta Baruah (PW-2), Constable Nirmal Chandra Kalita (PW-3), Constable Nur Zamal Ali (PW-4) and Pabitra Baroi (PW-5) were attached to the same platoon with the appellant and they were present in the barrack. Similarly, Punyeswar Doley (PW-6) and Amiyo Kumar Sarma (PW-11) were attached to Rangia Police Station. 12. It is the testimony of Mahikanta Baruah that at about 2 p.m., while he was on sentry duty outside the barrack, he heard two gun shots. He then entered inside the barrack and woke up Nirmal Chandra Kalita and told him about the hearing of two gun shots. Then, both of them went outside and searched for the source of gun shots. But they could not locate anything suspicious. Then, Nirmal Chandra Kalita told him that he had also smelt gun powder and peeping inside the room of Kartik Barman, he raised an alarm saying that the appellant was lying inside the room. According to Mahikanta Baruah on entering inside the barrack, he found the door of armoury lying ajar and the lock was broken. He then locked the door and came out when he saw some constables taking the appellant out to Rangiya Hospital. 13. Nirmal Chandra Kalita (PW-3) has also deposed that Mahikanta Baruah told him that he had heard two gun shots and together they searched for the source of shots. Mahikanta Baruah then told him that Kartik Barman was lying down who did not respond when called. Then they informed the matter to Sub-Inspector Bipul Sharma, who along with few constables opened the door and found Kartik Barman lying in a pool of blood. According to Nirmal Chandra Kalita he also saw the appellant writhing near a box kept close to the bed with a revolver in his hand. Seeing this Bipul Sharma snatched the revolver from the hand of appellant. Nirmal Chandra Kalita also says that he then went to the armoury room and found the box, where Kartik Barman used to keep his service revolver, had been forcefully opened and the revolver was missing. 14. Likewise, Nur Zamal Ali (PW-4) has also deposed that on the night of occurrence, he was talking to Mahikanta Baruah when they heard two gun shots from the direction of Kartik Barman's room. They, therefore, ran towards the room and Mahikanta Baruah called Kartik Barman, but he did not respond. 14. Likewise, Nur Zamal Ali (PW-4) has also deposed that on the night of occurrence, he was talking to Mahikanta Baruah when they heard two gun shots from the direction of Kartik Barman's room. They, therefore, ran towards the room and Mahikanta Baruah called Kartik Barman, but he did not respond. Then a police party arrived there and Pabitra Baroi flashed torch light and saw blood in the room. Thereafter, entering the room they found the appellant lying on the floor groaning with the revolver in his hand. He had sustained head injuries behind his head. The revolver was allotted to Kartik Barman and the box where it was kept was found to be broken. 15. Pabitra Baroi (PW-5) has deposed that on the night of occurrence he was awaken by Noor Zamal Ali, who told him that he had smelt gun powder. They then came out and found the window of Kartik Barman's room open. Pabitra Baroi has also testified that he called Kartik Barman but got no response. Then, he by flashing the torchlight saw Kartik Barman lying with his face down and hand on his head having blood. According to Pabitra Baroi, at that time, Sub-Inspector Bipul Sharma and Puneswar Doley came and together they entered inside the room where they found the appellant lying on the floor with the revolver of Kartik Barman in his hand. 16. Punyeswar Doley (PW-6) deposed that on the night of occurrence, he heard gun shots and entering the room of Kartik Barman, he found Kartik Barman lying bent on the bed and the appellant struggling on the floor nearby the bed with a revolver in his hand. The revolver was attached to a belt with a chain and the appellant was wearing the belt. The appellant tried to shoot again but Puneswar Doley snatched the revolver from his hand. 17. Thus, the evidence of all the aforesaid witnesses corroborates one another on material particulars. Their testimonies are consistent and can be believed. Puneswar Doley, Nirmal Chnadra Kalita, Nur Zamal Ali and Pabitra Baroi arrived the room of Kartik Barman almost at the same time after hearing two gun shots and found his dead body. They also found the appellant crawling on the floor near the bed with the service revolver of Kartik Barman in his hand. Puneswar Doley, Nirmal Chnadra Kalita, Nur Zamal Ali and Pabitra Baroi arrived the room of Kartik Barman almost at the same time after hearing two gun shots and found his dead body. They also found the appellant crawling on the floor near the bed with the service revolver of Kartik Barman in his hand. It is the testimony of all the aforesaid witnesses that the appellant was also injured on his head due to gunshot and the same is corroborated by Dr. Purajit Choudhury (PW-9), who treated the appellant. The appellant has also not denied that he had gunshot injury on his head. Thus, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was found in the room of Kartik Barman immediately after the occurrence. 18. From the testimony of Puneswar Doley, it is apparent that the appellant was holding the service revolver of Kartik Barman in his hand and the same was attached to his belt with a chain. Thus, it is evident that the appellant wore the belt of Kartik Barman after getting the revolver from the barrack. Mahikanta Baruah, Nirmal Chandra Kalita and Nur Zamal have deposed that the box where Kartik Barman used to keep the revolver was found to be broken and the ammunitions were missing. The evidence of Upen Bora is that the empty fired cartridges Exhibit-C-1 and C-2 were fired through Exhibit-A revolver which proves beyond reasonable doubt that the revolver of Kartik Barman was used to fire the two gun shots, one of which killed Kartik Barman and the other injured the appellant. Though, Dr.Pratap Chandra Sarma opined that Kartik Barman died due to rifled gun injury, we are of the view that since the ballistic expert - Upen Bora, after conducting physical and chemical analysis in the Forensic Laboratory, came to the conclusion that bullets were fired from the revolver of Kartik Barman, the opinion of Upen Bora is more reliable than Dr.Pratap Chandra Sarma and hence, the conclusion of Upen Bora is to be given more weightage. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the two bullets which killed Kartik Barman and injured the appellant were fired from that Exhibit-A revolver allotted to Kartik Barman, which was found in the hand of appellant immediately after the occurrence. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the two bullets which killed Kartik Barman and injured the appellant were fired from that Exhibit-A revolver allotted to Kartik Barman, which was found in the hand of appellant immediately after the occurrence. Hence, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant first broke open the armory of the barrack, took possession of the service revolver of Kartik Barman, wore the belt and entering inside the room of Kartik Barman, first shot one bullet into his head, while he was sleeping, thereby, killing him instantaneously and fired the second round into his own head, which left him injured. He then fell into the floor near the bed and as he struggled to fire the next round, Puneswar Doley entered inside the room and snatched the revolver from his hand. The appellant has also not cited any explanation as to how he was found injured in the room of Kartik Barman being shot with the service revolver of the latter and as to how Kartik Barman died. On the contrary the appellant remained mum and simply pleaded innocence. Thus, the chain of circumstances is complete without there being any missing link. 19. For these reasons, we completely agree with the findings of the trial court and hold that appellant alone is the perpetrator of crime and the trial court has rightly passed the impugned conviction and sentence. 20. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.