JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties. 2. The appellant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction dated 08.02.2006 and Order of Sentence dated 13.02.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Deoghar in Sessions Case No.37 of 2005 whereby and where under the appellant has been convicted for having committed offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.5,000/- with default clause for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.. 3. The case of the prosecution as unfolded in the fardbeyan of the informant in brief is that the informant is the wife of the appellant-accused. About twelve days before 29.12.2004 when her fardbeyan was recorded by police on a Friday at 8.00 pm, when the informant was about to go to sleep in her house, the appellant-accused being the husband of the informant, came to house being armed with a pistol and told that he will kill the informant. The appellant-accused thereafter, fired at the informant from the pistol causing injury on her cheek just below her right eye. After sustaining the gun-shot injury, the informant fell down and became unconscious. She regained sense after one day. She was unable to see with both her eyes. The appellant-accused took her by hiding from the village and got her treated. After 3-4 days, she was unable to see anything with her right eye but she was able to see with her left eye. Three days prior to lodging of the F.I.R., the appellant-accused brought the informant to their house. The father of the informant came to the house of the informant one day before the lodging of the F.I.R. The informant disclosed the occurrence to her father and on being accompanied by her father she went to the police station and got her statement recorded. 4. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, police registered Sarwan P.S. Case No.179 of 2004 and took up investigation of the case. After completion of the investigation, police submitted police report against the appellant-accused. 5. 4. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, police registered Sarwan P.S. Case No.179 of 2004 and took up investigation of the case. After completion of the investigation, police submitted police report against the appellant-accused. 5. Upon commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charges for the offences punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act were framed against the appellant-accused person. 6. Upon the appellant-accused person pleading not guilty to the charges and claiming to be tried, he was put to trial. 7. In support of its case, the prosecution altogether examined six witnesses besides proving the documents. 8. Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W.4- Subaida Khatoon is the informant of the case. She has stated that about four months prior to her being examined in the court on 08.04.2005, the occurrence took place on a Friday at 8.00 pm. After taking supper, the P.W.4 was getting ready to sleep. The appellant-accused came and shot at the right eye of the informant. The informant fell down and became senseless. The appellant-accused took the informant to another village. But the father of the P.W.4 came 9-10 days after the occurrence and the P.W.4 disclosed him about the occurrence. The father of the P.W.4 took her to police station and police recorded her statement which was read over to her and on finding the contents of the same to be true, the P.W.4 signed the same. Police sent the P.W.4 to Sarwan hospital where she was treated. Her husband used to demand money from her to be brought from her father for which the P.W.4 was not agreeing and because of the said reasons, the appellant-accused fired at her. In her cross-examination, she has stated that her paternal house is in the same village as the house of her husband. She has further stated that she does not know after firing, to which village her husband took her. She stayed in that village for 7-8 days. During this period she did not get any relief from the effect of injury. She was not able to see with her right eye. She met her father in her matrimonial house 10-11 days after the occurrence. She disclosed about the occurrence to Niyazuddin Ansari ten days after the occurrence. She stayed in that village for 7-8 days. During this period she did not get any relief from the effect of injury. She was not able to see with her right eye. She met her father in her matrimonial house 10-11 days after the occurrence. She disclosed about the occurrence to Niyazuddin Ansari ten days after the occurrence. She went to her house after being treated in hospital. She denied the suggestion that without the permission of her husband, she had gone to see the display of fire crackers and that she sustained injuries by the bursting of crackers. 9. P.W.5- Dr. Deepak Kumar Sinha is the doctor who examined the P.W.4. He has stated that on 29.12.2004 at about 3:40 pm, he examined the informant-P.W.4 and found the following three injuries:- 1. Sutured wound lacerated 1” long and partially healed with blackish Margin 1” below right eye. 2. Multiple blackish spots on right cheek and forehead. 3. Redness of right eye. He has opined that the age of the injuries were within one week of examination. Injury Nos.1 and 2 could be due to fire arms or cracker blast. In respect of injury No.3, the patient was referred to Deoghar hospital and he kept his opinion reserved. He disclosed that the injuries were possible to have been caused by fire arms and may be by a country-made pistol also. The injury report which was in his pen and signature, on being proved by him was marked Ext. 1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the injury Nos.1 and 2 may be possible by fire arms and by cracker blast also. 10. P.W.1- Mohd. Niyazuddin Ansari has stated that the occurrence took place on 17.12.2004 at about 8.00 pm. He was returning towards his house. On hearing the noise he went towards the place of occurrence and saw the appellant-accused running with a pistol in his hand and entering the house of Allauddin. P.W.1 saw that the P.W.4 sustained gun-shot injury on her right eye. On being asked by P.W.1, the P.W.4 disclosed that her husband had shot at her. In his cross-examination, the P.W.1 has stated that when he reached near the house of the appellant-accused, he heard the sound of firing of a bullet. Before the P.W.1 reached there, two to four persons were also there. On being asked by P.W.1, the P.W.4 disclosed that her husband had shot at her. In his cross-examination, the P.W.1 has stated that when he reached near the house of the appellant-accused, he heard the sound of firing of a bullet. Before the P.W.1 reached there, two to four persons were also there. The father and mother of Salauddin and a lady of a nearby place were there from before. The appellant-accused was not present in his house. He was going outside the house. The appellant-accused did not return. The P.W.1 stayed there for five minutes. The P.W.1 met the P.W.4 in presence of the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the P.W.4. He stated the facts of the case as stated by him to police. At that time, there was a torch with the P.W.1. He did not inform the father of the P.W.4. 11. P.W.2- Mohd. Baharuddin Ansari is the father of the P.W.4. He has stated that the occurrence took place four months prior to his deposing in court on 07.03.2005. He got the informant married with the appellant-accused. The P.W.2 had gone to Bengal for making bricks. He heard about his daughter being fired at there and on getting the information, he went to the informant and enquired about the matter and then only the P.W.2 could know that the appellant-accused person used to demand money from the P.W.4 and thereafter he fired at her right eye. P.W.2 took the P.W.4 to Sarwan Police Station. Police recorded the statement of P.W.4 and read over the same to her and on finding the same to be true, the P.W.4 put her thumb impression and the P.W.2 also put his thumb impression as a witness. He identified the appellant-accused person in the court. In his cross-examination, the P.W.2 has stated that from the time of marriage to till the date of occurrence, the daughter of the P.W.2 complained against the appellant-accused person but the P.W.2 did not give any information to anybody nor did he convene any panchayati. He got the information about the occurrence from his nephew Sher Ali in Sonpur at Bengal but he does not remember on which date Sher Ali intimated him about the occurrence. He got the information about the occurrence from his nephew Sher Ali in Sonpur at Bengal but he does not remember on which date Sher Ali intimated him about the occurrence. On being enquired from the in-laws of the P.W.4, the P.W.2 could know that the appellant-accused used to demand money from the P.W.4 and threatened to kill the P.W.4 and that the appellant-accused person aimed at the chest of the P.W.4. But the P.W.4 was hit near her eyes. 12. P.W.3-Gafoor Mian is a farmer. He has stated that the P.W.4 showed him that the appellant-accused person has fired near the eyes of the P.W.4. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the P.W.4 called him and showed her injury. But again he says that nobody called him and he went voluntarily. 13. P.W.6- Suresh Prasad Yadav is the investigating officer of the case. He has stated that on 29.12.2004, he was posted as A.S.I. in Sarwan Police Station. He got the fardbeyan of the P.W.4 recorded and made endorsement there on. On being identified by him, the formal F.I.R. which was written by him was marked Ext.3 and the formal F.I.R. was marked Ext. 3/1. After recording of the statement of the informant, the P.W.6 took up the investigation of the case. He went to the place of the occurrence and described the same with its boundary. He recorded the statement of the witnesses and sent the PW.4 for treatment along with the requisition. The requisition for medical examination on being proved by P.W.6 was marked Ext. 2. In his cross-examination, the P.W.6 has stated that during the period from 17.12.2004 to 29.12.2004, neither the Chowkidar nor anybody else informed about the occurrence to him. Before preparation of the injury report, the P.W.6 disclosed that her husband got her treated somewhere else secretly. The P.W.1 did not disclose before him as to when he went to the house of the appellant-accused. He saw that the informant-P.W.4 had received gun-shot injury on her right eye and P.W.4 disclosed him that the appellant-accused has shot her at her eye. The P.W.1 did not disclose to the P.W.6 as to when he saw the appellant-accused running here and there with a pistol in his hand. He saw that the informant-P.W.4 had received gun-shot injury on her right eye and P.W.4 disclosed him that the appellant-accused has shot her at her eye. The P.W.1 did not disclose to the P.W.6 as to when he saw the appellant-accused running here and there with a pistol in his hand. The P.W.4 did not state before the P.W.6 that the appellant-accused person was aiming at the chest of the P.W.4 but the bullet hit her on the eyes. He denied the suggestion that the P.W.4 sustained injuries as children were bursting crackers. He arrested the accused person on the same day of recording the fardbeyan. He did not seize any fire arm from the appellant-accused person. 14. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the appellant-accused person was recorded regarding the circumstances appearing in evidence against him wherein he denied the allegations made against him and pleaded his innocence. 15. In his defence, the appellant-accused examined four witnesses. The D.W.1-Noor Jahan Bibi is the mother-in-law of the informant. She has stated that there was no quarrel between the P.W.4 and the appellant-accused. About 7½ months prior to her examination in court in the month of Paush on a Friday at about 7.30 pm, the children were bursting crackers. A splinter of which hit the P.W.4 on her eye and she was treated. In her cross-examination, she has stated that about 15 days prior to the occurrence, there was Dipawali festival. Sarwan hospital is at a distance of 1 kilometer from her house. The P.W.4 was treated in the house itself. The D.W.1 informed the paternal house of the P.W.4. 16. D.W.2-Sahabuddin Ali has stated that about eight months prior to 20.08.2005 when he was examined in the court, in the month of Paush on a Friday at 7.30 pm, the children were bursting crackers. The P.W.4 went there and sustained injuries on her eye. He further stated that it is false to say that the appellant-accused fired at the P.W.4. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the day of occurrence was a moonlit night. The appellant-accused is his paternal uncle. The appellant-accused did not take the P.W.4 to hospital. 17. D.W.3-Mohd. Sohrat Ansari has stated that on 29.12.2004 the P.W.4 sustained injuries on her eyes by fire crackers. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the day of occurrence was a moonlit night. The appellant-accused is his paternal uncle. The appellant-accused did not take the P.W.4 to hospital. 17. D.W.3-Mohd. Sohrat Ansari has stated that on 29.12.2004 the P.W.4 sustained injuries on her eyes by fire crackers. It is false to say that the appellant-accused injured the P.W.4 by shooting her with pistol. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he is the father of the appellant-accused. The P.W.4 sustained injuries on her left eye at one place which was shown to the doctor and she was shown to the doctor on the same day of sustaining injuries. 18. D.W.4- Mohd. Sakeel Ansari has stated that about 8-9 months prior to his being examined in the court on a Friday, he was sitting on a culvert. The children were bursting crackers which hit the P.W.4 in her eye. The appellant-accused person got her wife treated. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the crackers were bursting at a distance of ten hands from the house of the appellant-accused. D.W.4 cannot say the cracker of which child caused injuries to the P.W.4. The appellant-accused took the P.W.4 to the doctor at Sarwan Hospital on the next day of the occurrence. 19. Learned court below after taking into consideration the evidence in the record convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused person as already indicated above. 20. Mr. Shambhu Nath Tiwari the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned court below failed to properly appreciate the evidence in record. It is further submitted that there is major contradiction in the testimonies of the witnesses examined and the presence of P.W.1 at the place of occurrence immediately after the occurrence as claimed, is belied from the testimony of the P.W.4 wherein she has stated that she disclosed about the occurrence to the P.W1. Further, such statement of P.W.1 of arriving at the place of occurrence immediately after the occurrence has been disclosed by him for the first time in court as he did not state the same to the investigating officer being the P.W.6. It is further submitted that the learned court below erred by not considering the fact that there is inordinate delay of about twelve days in lodging the F.I.R and no independent witness has been examined in this case. It is further submitted that the learned court below erred by not considering the fact that there is inordinate delay of about twelve days in lodging the F.I.R and no independent witness has been examined in this case. It is further submitted that as no repeated fire was alleged against the appellant-accused, hence, no intention to murder the P.W.4 could be inferred from the evidence put forth in the record and in the absence of the same, no offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code could have been held to have been proved against the appellant-accused person. It is further submitted that there is no ballistic report in the record to suggest that what sort of fire arm was used in the alleged offence or at all any arm capable of fire was used. It is next submitted that the learned court below ought not have convicted the appellant-accused person for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act. It is also submitted that the defence witnesses have categorically stated that the P.W.4 sustained injuries by bursting of the crackers, which is credible. Therefore, it is submitted that this is a fit case where the appellant-accused person be acquitted at least by giving him the benefit of doubt. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence being not sustainable in law, be set aside. 21. Mr. Sanjay Kr. Pandey the learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand defended the judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submitted that the P.W.4 has categorically stated about her being shot at by the appellant-accused person by the fire arm. It is further submitted that it remains undisputed that the P.W.4 has sustained injuries and she is the wife of the appellant-accused person and nothing has been elicited in her cross-examination to discredit or disbelieve her testimony and the delay in lodging of F.I.R. has suitably been explained by the prosecution. It is then submitted that there is nothing in the record to raise doubt about the testimony of the victim as there is no reason for a wife to falsely implicate her own husband when there is no ill-will between them. It is then submitted that there is nothing in the record to raise doubt about the testimony of the victim as there is no reason for a wife to falsely implicate her own husband when there is no ill-will between them. Hence, it is submitted that the evidence in the record is sufficient to establish the charge for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 27 of the Arms Act and the sentence of the appellant-accused appears to be proper, keeping in view the nature of charges established against the appellant-accused and the learned court below having rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant accused person, this appeal being without any merit be dismissed. 22. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the evidence in record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that when an accused shoots from a close range on the victim, the knowledge of possible death can be imputed to the accused as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment reported in the case of Liyakat Mian and others v. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1973 SC 807 (paragraph -8). Now, coming to the evidence in the record, P.W.4 is the sole eye witness of the occurrence. Keeping in view the nature of the allegation against the appellant-accused person, the same rules out any other eye witness to the occurrence as it is the case of the prosecution that in the bedroom of the P.W.4, she was shot at by her husband and which rules out the presence of anybody else at the time of occurrence. Under such circumstances, it is needless to mention that non-examination of any independent witness will certainly not affect the veracity of the case of the prosecution. So far as the testimony of the P.W.4 is concerned, nothing has been elicited in her cross-examination to discredit or disbelieve her testimony though she is an illiterate witness which is apparent from the thumb impression which she has put in her deposition. She has withstood the lengthy cross-examination by the defence. Nothing could be elicited by defence in her cross-examination to disbelieve or discredit her testimony. She has withstood the lengthy cross-examination by the defence. Nothing could be elicited by defence in her cross-examination to disbelieve or discredit her testimony. The fact that she did not support the contention of the P.W.1 to be an immediate post occurrence witness of the occurrence only enhances her credibility. Her testimony is trustworthy and reliable. 23. It is admitted that the P.W.4 is an injured witness. It is a settled principle of law that the testimony of the injured witness stands on a higher pedestal than any ordinary witness because normally the injured witness do not spare be a silent to falsely implicate somebody else in an occurrence more so when the accused person is her own husband. There is nothing in the record to show that there was any marital discord or disharmony between them except of the appellant-accused demanding money from the P.W.4. It is a settled principle of law that the delay in lodging the F.I.R. will not be fatal when the same is suitably explained. In this case, the evidence in the record suggests that immediately after receiving the injury, the P.W.4 was taken to village and she became unconscious and was not able to see for some days and she was immediately removed to a different village by her husband. She was brought to her own village only three days prior to her father meeting her and when she disclosed the occurrence to her father, the next day her father and she approached the police. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the delay in lodging the F.I.R. has suitably been explained and in this case the delay in lodging the F.I.R. will not be fatal. So far as the contention of the appellant regarding the absence of any ballistic report is concerned, it is a settled principle of law that when the eye witnesses have stated that the accused has fired at the deceased as a result of which she died and the prosecution witnesses have been believed by the court, not obtaining the ballistic report by the I.O. will not be fatal for the prosecution. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Inder Singh & Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan (2015) 2 SCC 734 observed as under in paragraph 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Inder Singh & Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan (2015) 2 SCC 734 observed as under in paragraph 12. “ … … … If, per chance, he would have been the sole witness, even then it may have been possible for the courts below to convict the accused persons on his testimony after testing its veracity in the light of his earlier statement contained in the FIR. In such a factual scenario, we find no reason to doubt the prosecution case if the I.O. failed to recover pellets from the open field which was the place of occurrence or if he could not obtain ballistic report. The eye version account of the occurrence and the medical evidence showing large number of injuries including firearm injuries support each other. On this issue, the discussion and findings of the trial court against the accused persons is found to have sufficient merit.” The testimony of P.W.4 of having received the gun-shot injury is corroborated by the P.W.5 being the doctor who examined her. The doctor has opined that such injury is possible by fire arms like a country-made pistol by which according to the P.W.4, the appellant-accused shot at her. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the evidence in the record is sufficient to establish the charge for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act. So far as the sentence is concerned, considering the fact that there is no evidence regarding the gravity of the injuries and the appellant was aged 20 years at the time of the judgment, this Court is of the considered view that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of five years with fine as imposed instead of seven years as made by the learned trial court in the impugned judgment with fine as imposed in the impugned judgment will be proper in the facts and circumstances of the case so far as offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment of three years for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act appears to be proper. 24. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment of three years for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act appears to be proper. 24. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 08.02.2006 and Order of Sentence dated 13.02.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Deoghar in Sessions Case No.37 of 2005 is confirmed and the sentence in respect of offence punishable under Section 27 of Arms Act is also confirmed and the sentence in respect of the offence punishable under Section 307 is modified from rigorous imprisonment of seven years to five years. 25. The appeal is dismissed with the modification of sentence in respect of offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned. 26. Perusal of the record reveals that the appellant namely Mohd. Salauddin Ansari @ Md. Salauddin is on bail. In view of confirmation of his conviction and the sentence passed in the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 08.02.2006 and Order of Sentence dated 13.02.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Deoghar in Sessions Case No.37 of 2005, he is directed to surrender before the learned court below forthwith failing which the learned court below is directed to take all coercive steps for undergoing the sentence. 27. Let the lower court records be sent to the learned court below along with a copy of this judgment forthwith.