JUDGMENT Kailash Prasad Deo, J. - Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Krishna Shankar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. The instant Criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 28.01.2004, passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court, Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No. 636 of 1997 / T. R. No.661 of 2003, whereby, the sole appellant has been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act and awarded Rigorous Imprisonment for five years for the offence committed and punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Rigorous Imprisonment for three years for the offence committed and punishable under section 27 of the Arms Act with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further to undergo imprisonment for three months. 3. The prosecution case, is based upon, fardbeyan of the informant, Prem Verma (P.W.7), recorded by Pradeep Kumar, Sub-Inspector of police, Kotwali Police Station, Ranchi, on 02.02.1997 at 11.30 hrs., wherein, the informant has alleged, that today, in the morning he went to his shop, Richu Traders, situated at Harmu Road, Ranchi. It is alleged that when he reached his shop, his staffs namely, Pappu Verma and Naresh Verma were cleaning the shop. The informant stayed at the road of his shop and was talking with photographer Jawed jee. It is alleged that at about 10.45 A.M., one LML Vespa scooter, green in colour came from the side of Ratu Road and stopped near the shop of informant, from which one person got down and opened fire on the informant. It is further alleged that when the accused person opened fire, informant fled away to save his life and in due course second firing was made, due to panic, both the staffs of the shop also fled away. In the meantime accused person, who had opened fire, fled away riding on the scooter, towards Harmu. It is also alleged that, there was no number plate in the scooter. In the meantime accused person, who had opened fire, fled away riding on the scooter, towards Harmu. It is also alleged that, there was no number plate in the scooter. The informant has disclosed that all the accused persons were young and one of accused person having stengun in his hand, aged about 32 years, concealed his face by scarf(muffler), second accused person, who was driving the scooter, worn monkey cap and the third accused person was having revolver in his hand, was tall. Third firing was made at distance of 100-150 yards from the shop, but none of the firing has caused any injury to any person, rather firing has caused a hole in the pan of the beam-balance and also a scratch marked upon another pan of the beam-balance and a hole in the cement bag, kept in the shop. The informant has further stated that he has no enmity with any person nor there is any reason as to why the accused persons were trying to kill him. 4. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, the Police has registered First Information Report bearing Kotwali, P.S. Case No. 46 of 1997, dated 02.02.1997, under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act, against unknown accused person. During investigation informant has disclosed the name of appellant on 05.04.1997 before this Investigating Officer. 5. After investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet vide charge sheet no. 330 of 1997, dated 23.08.1997, under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act against the accused/appellant, Surendra Singh Rautela @ Surendra Singh Bangali @ S. S. Rautula. 6. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 01.09.1997 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 03.10.1997. 7. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the appellant, on 26.03.1998, under Sections 307 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act, to which the accused/appellant has pleaded his innocence and thus, he was put under trial. 8. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined altogether eight prosecution witnesses and also exhibited documentary evidence. 8. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined altogether eight prosecution witnesses and also exhibited documentary evidence. Pappu Verma, an eye witness to the occurrence, working in the shop of the informant, has been examined as P.W.1, Naresh Verma, another eye witness to the occurrence, working in the shop of informant, has been examined as P.W.2, Bhola Bhagat has been examined as P.W.3, but has been declared hostile by the prosecution, Awadesh Prasad, a hearsay witness, has been examined as P.W.4, Majhar, another hearsay witness, has been examined as P.W.5, Md. Shamshul, another hearsay witness, has been examined as P.W.6, Prem Verma, informant of the case, has been examined as P.W.7 and Ratan Kumar Verma, the seizure witness has been examined as P.W.8 and has proved his signature on the seizure list, which has been marked as Exhibit-1/1 i.e. pan of beam-balance having hole, another pan having scratch marked and remnant of used cartridge. Signature of Pappu Verma (P.W.1), on fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1 and signature of Ratan Kumar Verma (P.W.8), on seizure list has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1/1. 9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant has been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 on 04.09.2003, to which the appellant has denied about the occurrence and stated that informant has connived with his opponents and has falsely implicated him. No defence witness has been examined nor any documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of defence. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of materials available on record, learned trial Court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Being aggrieved at and dissatisfied with the same, the present criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant before this Hon''ble Court, assailing the same. 11. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and cannot sustain in the eyes of law. 11. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that non-examination of the investigation officer has caused serious prejudice to the appellant, as the appellant could not get an opportunity to cross-examine the investigating officer with respect to disclosure of the name of accused/appellant during investigation, as the First Information Report was lodged against unknown person. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that it is a case, where appellant has been falsely implicated by a concocted story. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that appellant is not named in the First Information Report nor in the re-statement of the informant but after two months, on 05.04.1997, the name of the appellant has been disclosed by the informant, which is apparent from paragraph-54 of the case dairy. Since the investigating officer has not been examined in this case, the appellant could not get an opportunity to crossexamine the investigating officer and thus the same has caused serious prejudice to the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that while giving re-statement after two months, the informant has not disclosed regarding the source of his knowledge for knowing the name of the appellant as an accused, who has fired upon him as the First Information Report was lodged by him initially against unknown accused persons. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that there is no ingredient to constitute an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Under the aforesaid circumstances, in absence of the complete chain of circumstance the appellant cannot be convicted under section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act and appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that the statement of the appellant recorded under section 313 Cr. P.C., 1973 suggest that appellant has been falsely implicated in this case as the informant has connived with the opponents of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has thus submitted, that the appellant may be granted benefit of doubt, as chain of circumstance has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. 12. P.C., 1973 suggest that appellant has been falsely implicated in this case as the informant has connived with the opponents of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has thus submitted, that the appellant may be granted benefit of doubt, as chain of circumstance has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. 12. Heard, learned counsel for the State, Mr. Krishna Shankar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the State has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been passed by the learned trial Court on the basis of materials available on record. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that though the informant has filed a case against unknown accused person but during investigation, on the basis of identification made by the informant with respect to accused, Surendra Singh Rautela @ Surendra Singh Bangali @ S. S. Rautula, after seeing his photograph in a newspaper, the name of appellant has been disclosed by the informant to the police officer. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that appellant has not disclosed, the name of enemy with whom informant has connived. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that it is not a case of false implication of appellant, had it been so, the name of the appellant would have been mentioned in the First Information Report as accused but First Information Report was lodged by the informant before the police against unknown criminal. That during investigation the informant has identified the accused through photograph published in the newspaper, as it appears from paragraphs-4 of his cross-examination and on the basis of that the name of the appellant has been figured in this case. P.W.1, Pappu Verma and P.W.2, Naresh Verma, who are an eye witnesses to this occurrence, have also identified the accused present in the dock during their evidence in the learned trial Court. Learned counsel for the State has relied upon a judgment as reported in 2002 (4) Crimes(SC)307, Dana Yadav @ Dahu & Ors. vs. State of Bihar and referred paragraph 38 of the judgment:- 38. Learned counsel for the State has relied upon a judgment as reported in 2002 (4) Crimes(SC)307, Dana Yadav @ Dahu & Ors. vs. State of Bihar and referred paragraph 38 of the judgment:- 38. (e) Failure to hold test identification parade does not make the evidence of identification in court inadmissible rather the same is very much admissible in law, but ordinarily identification of an accused by a witness for the first time in court should not form basis of conviction, the same being from its very nature inherently of a weak character unless it is corroborated by his previous identification in the test identification parade or any other evidence. The previous identification in the test identification parade is a check valve to the evidence of identification in court of an accused by a witness and the same is a rule of prudence and not law. (f) In exceptional circumstances only, as discussed above, evidence of identification for the first time in court, without the same being corroborated by previous identification in the test identification parade or any other evidence, can form the basis of conviction. (g) Ordinarily, if an accused is not named in the first information report, his identification by witnesses in court, should not be relied upon, especially when they did not disclose name of the accused before the police, but to this general rule there may be exceptions as enumerated above. Learned counsel for the State has thus submitted, that considering the evidence adduced by informant, P.W.7, Prem Verma, who has disclosed the name of the appellant during investigation, on the basis of knowledge gathered from a newspaper and identified the accused in the dock during the trial coupled with the evidence of P.W.1, Pappu Verma and P.W.2, Naresh Verma, who have also identified the accused in the dock, the conviction of the appellant does not warrant any interference by this Hon''ble Court at this stage. 13. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Krishna Shankar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the records, i.e First Information Report, framing of the charge, evidence of eight prosecution witnesses, two prosecution exhibits and the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 as well as impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. This Court has scrutinized the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Krishna Shankar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the records, i.e First Information Report, framing of the charge, evidence of eight prosecution witnesses, two prosecution exhibits and the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 as well as impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. This Court has scrutinized the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The occurrence took place near the shop of informant, which is evident from oral testimony of the witnesses coupled with the seizure list, which has been proved by P.W.8, Ratan Kumar Verma, a seizure witness, whose signature on the seizure list has been marked as Exhibit-1/1. The initial First Information Report was lodged against unknown person, there are three eye witnesses to the occurrence i.e. P.W.1, Pappu Verma, P.W.2, Naresh Verma and P.W.7, Prem Verma (Informant) of the case. P.W.3, Bhola Bhagat has been declared hostile by the prosecution, P.W.4, Awadesh Prasad, P.W.5, Majhar and P.W.6, Md. Shamshul are the hearsay witnesses, who have also supported the prosecution case to the effect that they have heard the sound of firing. This Court has scrutinized the evidence of the informant, P.W.7 Prem Verma, who has not disclosed the name of the appellant in his fardbeyan but later on after seeing the newspaper, he has identified the appellant, whose name was Surendra Singh Rautela @ Surendra Singh Bangali @ S. S. Rautula and on the basis of that, informant has given its statement before the police under Section 161 Cr. P.C., 1973 on 05.04.1997 and thus appellant was made an accused in this case and charge sheeted by the police. The P.W.1, Pappu Verma and P.W.2, Naresh Verma have identified this appellant in the dock, coupled with identification of appellant by the informant, P.W.7, Prem Verma in the dock. The judgment relied upon by the learned State counsel is applicable in the present case is sufficient for holding conviction of the accused. This court has examined the evidence, it appears that informant has disclosed the name of appellant during investigation and has identified the accused in the dock, who was also identified by two of the eye witnesses namely, Pappu Verma(P.W.1) and Naresh Verma(P.W.2). This court has examined the evidence, it appears that informant has disclosed the name of appellant during investigation and has identified the accused in the dock, who was also identified by two of the eye witnesses namely, Pappu Verma(P.W.1) and Naresh Verma(P.W.2). Under the aforesaid circumstance considering the evidence brought on record particularly evidence of the informant, P.W.7, Pappu Verma, P.W.1 and Naresh Verma, P.W.2, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence does not require any interference of this Hon''ble Court. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 28.01.2004, passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court, Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No. 636 of 1997 / T. R. No.661 of 2003, arising out of Kotwali, P.S. Case No. 46 of 1997 corresponding to G. R. no. 243 of 1997 is hereby upheld and affirmed. 14. In the result, the present Criminal Appeal is hereby dismissed. 15. Let L.C.R. along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned at once.