JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 2. The sole appellant Parvez Alam @ Haider @ Tikra is aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19th of August, 2010 and 27th of August, 2010, respectively, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No.99 of 2008, whereby the appellant-accused has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default thereof to undergo further imprisonment for 3 months and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years for the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and 2 years for the offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and 3 years for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. 3. The FIR was drawn on 10.10.2007 at 3:00 P.M., on the basis of self-recorded statement of Sub-Inspector (for short S.I.), Sridev Upadhyay (P.W.-10), the Officer-in-charge of Katras Police Station, District-Dhanbad, wherein it is narrated that while he alongwith S.I., Rabindra Kumar Singh (P.W.-3), S.I Narendar Prasad Singh (P.W.-2) and other police personnel were returning from Katras College, where they had been deputed to maintain the law and order on the occasion of oath taking ceremony of the elected candidates of the Student Union, and when they reached at Bhagat Singh Chowk at around 14.10 hours, then they heard sound of gunshot firing coming from the direction of Katras-Rajganj road. Whereupon, he along with the police personnel proceeded in the said direction, and when they reached at the junction of the road leading towards Lakshmi Talkies, they saw a person lying on the road in a pool of blood. They saw people chasing the criminals. The police personnel also joined the chase and one criminal carrying a black bag on his shoulder was apprehended who disclosed his name as Parvez Alam and stated that he had shot the man and looted the bag and his companions Subodh Mandal and Soni @ Sohail had managed to escape on a Hero Honda motorcycle. Thereafter, in the presence of two independent witnesses namely, Mahesh Pramanik (P.W. 4) and Ranjit Jaiswal (P.W. 7), the black bag was opened which contained currency notes amounting to Rs.45,000/- (forty five thousand), train tickets and other articles. Thereafter, in the presence of two independent witnesses namely, Mahesh Pramanik (P.W. 4) and Ranjit Jaiswal (P.W. 7), the black bag was opened which contained currency notes amounting to Rs.45,000/- (forty five thousand), train tickets and other articles. On search of the body of Parvez Alam a country made pistol with a fired .32 cartridge and two live .32 cartridges, a mobile phone and currency notes amounting to Rs.865/-, etc. were found and seized. The seizure list was prepared on which the accused Parvez put his signature. The deceased, who suffered gunshot injuries, was identified by the people present there as Anwar Hussain, the ''munshi'' of Grand Shoe Company. The persons present on the spot disclosed that the deceased was shot by the criminals, Parvez Alam, Subodh Mandal and Soni as he had resisted the looting and snatching of the bag. The deceased died on the spot due to the bullet injury. 4. On the basis of the said written report Katras P.S. Case No. 29 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. No.3131 of 2007 was registered. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant Parvez Alam and three other persons. Cognizance was taken whereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. 5. The Court of Session heard the accused persons on the point of charge and framed the charges under Sections 302, 394 read with Section 34 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code (for short I.P.C) and 27 of the Arms Act against the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tired. 6. During the trial the prosecution examined altogether 12 witnesses namely; P.W. 1, Dr. Shailendra Kumar.- proved the post-mortem report marked Ext.3. P.W. 2, Narendra Kumar Singh- proved the inquest report-Ext.2. P.W. 3, Ravindra Kumar Singh-proved Ext.3, the challan whereby the dead body was sent for post-mortem. P.W. 4, Mahesh Pramanik, who admitted his signature (Ext. 4) on the seizure list. P.W. 5, Shankar Kumar Chourasia ( declared hostile). P.W. 6, Manindra Pratap P.W. 7, Ranjit Jaiswal- admitted his signature (Ext. 4/1) on the seizure list. P.W. 8, Wakil Singh- (Tendered) P.W. 9, Mithilesh Singh- (hearsay) P.W. 10, Sri Deo Upadhyaya- the informant proved the seizure list ( Ext. 5) and self written statement ( Ext. 6). P.W. 11, Ajay Kumar Keshari- I.O.-proved the formal F.I.R- (Ext. 7) - confessional statement of the accused Parvez Alam (Ext. 8). 4/1) on the seizure list. P.W. 8, Wakil Singh- (Tendered) P.W. 9, Mithilesh Singh- (hearsay) P.W. 10, Sri Deo Upadhyaya- the informant proved the seizure list ( Ext. 5) and self written statement ( Ext. 6). P.W. 11, Ajay Kumar Keshari- I.O.-proved the formal F.I.R- (Ext. 7) - confessional statement of the accused Parvez Alam (Ext. 8). -seizure list of Samsung Mobile ( Ext. 9). -confessional statement of co-accused Soni (Ext. 10). P.W. 12 Gupteshwar Singh- has produced the seized arms, cartridges and currency notes as:- (a) Material Ext.I- a currency note of Rs.500/- denomination. (b) Material Ext. I/1, I/2, I/3- three currency notes of Rs.100 denomination. (c) Material Ext. I/4- one currency note of Rs.50/- (d) Material Ext. I/5- one currency note of Rs.10/- (e) Material Ext. I/6- A currency note of Rs.5/- (f) Material Ext. I/7- the sealed envelope bearing Katras P.S. 293/07, containing the currency notes. (g) Material Ext. II country made pistol bearing the signature of C.J.M I/C, Dhanbad. (h) Material Ext. II/1 and II/2- two live cartridges. (i) Material Ext. II/3- Shell of the cartridges. (j) Material Ext. III- Tata Indicom Mobile set. (k) Material Ext. III/1- Samsung Mobile set. 7. On conclusion of the trial, the statement of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The defence is of complete denial. 8. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the Sessions Judge recorded the finding that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges against co-accused namely, Sonu @ Sahnawaz, Md. Sohail @ Soni and Subodh Mandal and, accordingly, they were acquitted. However, the Sessions Judge found that the charges for the offence under Sections 302, 392, 411 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act was established beyond all reasonable doubt, against the appellant-Parvez Allam @ Haider @ Tikra by the aforesaid judgment impugned in the instant appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the impugned judgment has argued that no independent witness/witnesses has or have supported the case. That the conviction is founded on the testimony of the police personnel who were not the eye witness to the crime. P.Ws.-2 & 3 as well as P.W.-10, the informant have stated that they had not seen the occurrence. The police personnel examined as witnesses have failed to state as to who apprehended the appellant-accused. That the conviction is founded on the testimony of the police personnel who were not the eye witness to the crime. P.Ws.-2 & 3 as well as P.W.-10, the informant have stated that they had not seen the occurrence. The police personnel examined as witnesses have failed to state as to who apprehended the appellant-accused. It is contended that the learned Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that the owner of ''Grand Shoe Shop'' was not examined to establish that the deceased Anwar Hussain was his employee. That the court below has committed manifest error in overlooking the fact that though the police witnesses have deposed that the firearm was sent to Forensic Laboratory but the prosecution failed to produce the forensic report or the ballistic report to prove the fact that the said firearm was used in commission of the crime and deceased sustained firearm injury from the country made pistol alleged to have been recovered from the appellants. It is argued that the black bag and currency notes amounting to Rs.45,000/- alleged to have been seized from the possession of the appellant-accused was not produced in the court, by the prosecution. The seizure list witnesses have stated that no seizure of articles was made in their presence. It is argued that the informant, i.e., P.W.10, Sridev Upadhayay, has deposed that he had not sniffed the pistol to ascertain whether bullet was fired from the said pistol. 10. It is emphatically contended that the court below has erred in not appreciating the aforesaid facts. That the impugned judgment suffers from perversity in recording of findings of the evidence. That the court below has committed manifest error in convicting the accused-appellant only on the basis of the testimony of the police personnel who are highly interested witnesses. It is contended that the impugned judgment is not sustainable in law or on facts and deserves to be set aside. 11. Per contra, Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, learned A.P.P, contended that the informant, P.W.-10, and P.Ws.-2 & 3 have testified that when they reached the scene of crime they saw the deceased lying on the road and people were chasing the criminals. The accused-appellant was apprehended with the help of local people and the police personnel. It is argued that country-made pistol, cartridges and the black-bag containing currency notes amounting to Rs.45,000/- were recovered and seized from the appellant. The accused-appellant was apprehended with the help of local people and the police personnel. It is argued that country-made pistol, cartridges and the black-bag containing currency notes amounting to Rs.45,000/- were recovered and seized from the appellant. The deceased died due to firearm injury which stands corroborated by P.W.-1, the Doctor, who conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead body and opined that the death was due to injury caused by firearm. The argument that there is no testimony as to who had apprehended the appellant cannot be a ground to disbelieve the testimony of the informant (P.W.-10) and P.W.-2, Narendra Kumar Sinha and P.W.-3, Ravindra Kumar Singh, who have consistently deposed that that the appellant accused was apprehended from the place of occurrence and have withstood the rigours of extensive cross-examination by the defence. That P.W.-12, Gupteshwar Singh, had produced the country made pistol and the cartridges as well as the mobile set, and the sealed envelope containing Rs.865/- which were recovered from the possession of the accused-appellant. The witnesses have testified about recovery of the black bag containing currency notes of Rs. 45,000/- and firearms as well as cartridges from the possession of the accused-appellant. The appellant had admitted before the police personnel and in the presence of the people present at the spot that he had shot the deceased, Anwar Hussain, as he had offered resistance to the looting of the bag. 12. Learned A.P.P. has argued that the court below has considered and elaborately discussed the material evidence and recorded the finding that the appellant was guilty for the offences under Sections 302, 492, 411 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. It is submitted that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or impropriety meriting any interference by this court. 13. Heard. Before adverting to the rival contention it is necessary to traverse the oral and documentary evidence for determining the question whether the judgment impugned in the instant appeal is sustainable in law or on facts. 14. P.W.-1, Dr. Shailendra Kumar, had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and he found the following injures:- Wound of entrance of firearm 1/2" x 1/4" directed above downwards oval in shape stated on the middle front of neck with evidence of burning and tattooing along with inverted injuries on the wound. 14. P.W.-1, Dr. Shailendra Kumar, had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and he found the following injures:- Wound of entrance of firearm 1/2" x 1/4" directed above downwards oval in shape stated on the middle front of neck with evidence of burning and tattooing along with inverted injuries on the wound. On dissection:- the bullet entered into the chest cavity passing the sternum. It lacerated the arch of aorta and the upper lobe of right lung. It broke the body of second thoracic vertebra and got entangled there. P.W.-1, has opined that injuries were caused by firearm and the deceased died due to the aforesaid injury. The post-mortem report is Ext.-1. He has been cross-examined but no material contradiction has been brought forth. Thus the testimony of the Doctor establishes that the deceased died homicidal death on account of firearm injury. 15. P.W.-2, Narendra Kumar Sinha, and P.W.-3, Ravindra Kumar Singh, (S.I), have testified that they alongwith P.W.-10, Sridev Upadhayay, Officer-in-Charge and armed police force were returning from Katras College where they had been deputed to maintain law and order on the occasion of student union election. When they reached at Bhagat Singh Chowk (Katras Bazar), they heard sound of a gun-shot. They proceeded in the direction from where the gun-shot was fired. They saw a person with firearm injury lying on the ground. They saw people chasing the criminals and they too, joined the chase. They have testified that with the help of the people they apprehended one criminal who disclosed his name as Parvez Alam @ Haider. On questioning he had confessed that he had shot the deceased in course of looting of the bag and his associates Subodh Mandal and Soni @ Sohail had managed to escape on the motor cycle. P.Ws.- 2 & 3 have testified that in the presence of independent witnesses a search was made of the person of the apprehended-accused and a black bag, containing Rs.45,000/-, a train ticket, a pistol with a fired cartridge and two live cartridges of .32 bore and a Tata Indicom Mobile were recovered from his possession. P.W.-2 has deposed that he had prepared the inquest report (Ext.-2) which bears the signature of Ishtique and Taufique. P.W.-2 has testified that he had prepared the challan (Ext.-3) to send the dead body for post-mortem. P.W.-2 has deposed that he had prepared the inquest report (Ext.-2) which bears the signature of Ishtique and Taufique. P.W.-2 has testified that he had prepared the challan (Ext.-3) to send the dead body for post-mortem. P.Ws.-2 & 3 have testified that seizure list, of the articles recovered from the possession of the accused, was prepared in their presence. P.Ws.-2 & 3 have identified the appellant accused in the court. P.Ws.-2 & 3 have been cross-examined at length but their testimony has remained intact and no material contradiction was broughtforth to discredit their testimony. P.W.-3 has stated that the deceased was identified as Anwar Husain. 16. P.W.-4 Mahesh Pramanik, and P.W.-7 Ranjit Jaiswal have admitted their signatures (Ext.-4 and 4/1) on the seizure list. During cross-examination they have stated that nothing was recovered in their presence. Both of them stated that they had signed on a blank paper. 17. P.W.-5, Shankar Kumar Chourasia, has not supported the prosecution case and he has been declared hostile. He has been cross-examined by the prosecution under Section 154 of the Evidence Act but he has denied that he had made any statement before the police. 18. P.W.-8 Wakil Singh has been tendered by the prosecution. 19. P.W.-9, Mithilesh Singh has stated that he had heard that a person was shot dead. 20. P.W.-6 Manindra Pratap has testified that he owns a shoe shop. On 10.10.2007 the ''munshi'' of Grand Shoe Shop had come for tagada (collection of outstanding dues). That after collecting the money, he had left. Thereafter he heard that someone had been murdered whereupon he went to the place where he saw that the murdered person was the said munshi who had come to collect the dues. He had informed the owner of the said Grand Shoe Shop about the murder of the munshi. In cross-examination he has stated that the police did not record his statement and whatever he has stated was for the first time before the court. 21. P.W.-10 Sridev Upadhyay, is the informant. He has deposed that the incident took place on 10.10.2007 at 2:10 P.M. He along with other police personnel were returning from Katras College and when they reached the Chowk at Katras, they heard sound of gun fire and saw some persons running. 21. P.W.-10 Sridev Upadhyay, is the informant. He has deposed that the incident took place on 10.10.2007 at 2:10 P.M. He along with other police personnel were returning from Katras College and when they reached the Chowk at Katras, they heard sound of gun fire and saw some persons running. He along with the police proceeded in the said direction and saw a person lying on the road in a bloodied condition. The people of the locality were running after the criminals whereupon, the police force, accompanying him, also joined the people in chasing the criminals and one person carrying a black bag on his shoulder was apprehended. On questioning the apprehended person disclosed his name as Parvaz Alam. He stated that he was fleeing away with the bag after shooting the deceased and stated that his accomplices namely, Subodh Mandal and Soni @ Suhail had managed to escape. P.W.-10 has deposed that the persons present there identified the deceased as Anwar Husain who was a munshi of the person involved in shoe business. The people present there, stated that the criminals had looted the bag containing the money and shot the deceased. He testified that in the presence of independent witnesses the search was conducted on the person of Parvez Alam. In the black bag currency notes of the denominations of 1000, 500 and 100 rupees amounting to Rs.45,000/- and documents belonging to the deceased were found. A country made pistol with a .32 fired cartridge and two (2) live .32 cartridge, a Tata Indicom Mobile, etc., were recovered from the possession of Parvez Alam. He prepared the seizure list- Ext.-5 and arrested Parvez Alam. He has proved the self- recorded statement (Ext.-6) in his pen and the endorsement of assigning the investigation of the case to Ajay Kumar Keshari (P.W.-11). He identified the appellant in the court. In cross-examination he has stated that he had not seen the firing neither does he know the name of the person who had apprehended the accused. He has stated (at para 15) that the articles belonging to the deceased was released on the order of the court. He stated that in the self-recorded statement it has not been narrated that there was any smell or odour of recent firing from the pistol. He has stated (at para 15) that the articles belonging to the deceased was released on the order of the court. He stated that in the self-recorded statement it has not been narrated that there was any smell or odour of recent firing from the pistol. He has stated that P.W.-11 had reached the scene of occurrence after 10 to 15 minutes to whom he handed over the self-recorded statement for registering the F.I.R and the investigation of the case. 22. P.W.-11, Ajay Kumar Keshri, is the Investigating Officer. He has proved the formal F.I.R. marked Ext.-7. He has testified that had taken charge of investigation of the case on endorsement of P.W.-10. He has testified that a black colour bag and firearms and country made pistol were recovered from the possession of the arrested accused Parvez Alam. The seizure list was prepared in his presence and in the presence of the witnesses. He has deposed that the place of occurrence was on the Katras-Rajganj Road, at the more (turning) of Laxmi Talkies, in front of Neha P.C.O. He saw lot of blood at the spot. He has proved the confessional statement of Parvez Alam (Ext.-8), on the basis of which he arrested Md. Sonu and prepared the seizure list (Ext.-9) of the Samsung Mobile which was recovered from the possession of Md. Sonu. He obtained the call detail report of the mobile phone of Parvez Alam, Subodh Mandal, Shahnawaz @ Md. Sonu and recorded the confessional statement of Md. Sonu (Ext.-10). He has been cross-examined but no significant material contradiction has been brought forth to discredit his testimony. 23. P.W.-12, Gupteshwar Singh, is a police constable. He has produced the seized firearms, cartridges and sealed envelope containing currency notes which have been marked material Exhibits, as noted (para6) above. 24. On going through the evidence, it is evident that P.W.-10, the informant has supported the prosecution case as narrated in the self-recorded statement. P.Ws. 2 & 3 have corroborated the testimony of P.W.- 10, that when they were returning from Katras College and reached at Bhagat Singh Chowk, they heard sound of gun-shot whereupon they proceeded in the said direction. They reached near Neha P.C.O and saw a person with gun-shot injuries lying on the road in a bloodied condition. They saw the local people chasing the criminals and they also joined the chase. They reached near Neha P.C.O and saw a person with gun-shot injuries lying on the road in a bloodied condition. They saw the local people chasing the criminals and they also joined the chase. Whereafter, appellant-accused Parvez Alam was apprehended who was carrying a black bag on his shoulder. P.Ws.-2, 3 & 10, have testified that the bag contained Rs.45,000/- for which a seizure list was prepared. 25. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the seized amount of Rs.45,000/- was not produced in the court and this creates a serious doubt on the prosecutions'' case about recovery of the looted bag from the appellant-accused, in our view is rather misconceived and misplaced for the simple reason that P.W.-10 has categorically stated in cross-examination that the seized articles were released in favour of the owner of the articles on the orders of the court. The defence has nowhere challenged the recovery and seizure of looted bag containing currency notes amounting to Rs.45,000/-. In fact there is no suggestion to the witnesses that the said bag was not recovered from the possession of the appellant or the plea that the appellant has been falsely implicated or the appellant was not present at the place of occurrence. The testimony of P.W.- 10 satisfactorily explains and answers the arguments regarding the non-production of the seized currency notes in the court. The evidence of P.Ws.-2, 3 and P.W.-10, irrefutably demonstrate, the fact, that the appellant was apprehended from the scene of the crime after the pursuit by the public and the police. The analysis of the testimony of P.Ws.-2, 3 & 10 reveals that they have withstood the test of extensive cross-examination and no material contradiction has been broughtforth to doubt the testimony of P.Ws.-2, 3 & 10. It is necessary to notice that P.Ws.-4 & 7 have admitted their signatures marked Exts.-4 & 4/1, on the seizure list, though they have stated that nothing was seized in their presence. It is significant to note that no suggestion or question was put by the defence to P.Ws.-4 & 7 in support of the plea that the appellant was not present at the place of occurrence. 26. It is well settled legal position that presumption of fact is an inference as to the existence of one fact from the existence of some other facts, unless the truth of such inference is disproved. 26. It is well settled legal position that presumption of fact is an inference as to the existence of one fact from the existence of some other facts, unless the truth of such inference is disproved. In a plethora of decisions it has been observed that presumption of fact is a rule in law of evidence, that a fact otherwise doubtful may be inferred from certain other proved facts. The Court is empowered to exercise a process of reasoning to reach to a logical conclusion for deciding the most probable position. 27. In the back drop of the sequence of the events as deposed by P.Ws.-2, 3 & 10, we have no hesitation in holding that the evidence of the police personnel leave no room for doubt that the appellant was apprehended by the police, on chase, with the help of the local people. Therefore, the omission on the part of the independent witnesses in not coming to support the apprehension of the appellant, does not discredit the truthfulness of P.Ws-2,3 & 10, who have with clarity deposed that the appellant accused was arrested while fleeing away with the looted bag containing currency notes belonging to the deceased and the firearm with fired and live cartridges was recovered from him. 28. On evaluation of the obtaining evidence and the discussion made herein above, we are of the firm view that the arguments of the learned counsel that the seizure-list witnesses have not supported the seizure, has no legs to stand upon and is answered accordingly. The Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh Vs. State of Rajsthan, (1978) 4 SCC 435 , has observed that if the evidence of the investigating officer who recovered the material objects is convincing with respect to such recovery then it should not be rejected on the ground that the seizure- witnesses had not supported the prosecution version. 29. We have carefully perused the testimony of P.Ws.- 2, 3 & 10 and are convinced that the version of the witnesses are trustworthy and unimpeachable. In this context it is pertinent to state that the public at large often are reluctant due to some unfounded misgivings or apprehension to come forward to depose before the courts. 29. We have carefully perused the testimony of P.Ws.- 2, 3 & 10 and are convinced that the version of the witnesses are trustworthy and unimpeachable. In this context it is pertinent to state that the public at large often are reluctant due to some unfounded misgivings or apprehension to come forward to depose before the courts. In the attending facts, the non-examination of independent witnesses cannot be a ground to disbelieve the testimony of the police personnel since there is no absolute rule that police officers cannot be cited as witnesses or their testimony should be treated with suspicion. 30. From the evidence as marshalled out, it is abundantly clear that P.Ws.- 2, 3 & 10 have succinctly described as to the manner in which the appellant accused was apprehended and arrested. It is seen that the F.I.R. was lodged immediately and there was no occasion for fabrication of the prosecution case. Consequently the argument advanced by the learned counsel is not tenable and stands rejected. 31. Evidently, P.W.-12, has produced the pistols, fired and live cartridges, which bears the signature of C.J.M, Dhanbad. The laches and omission on the part of the investigating officer in not producing the forensic or ballistic report cannot be a ground to jettison the prosecution case especially when P.Ws.-2, 3 & 10 including P.W.-11, the I.O have testified about the seizure of the pistol with the fired .32 bore cartridge and two live .32 cartridges from the possession of the appellant-accused. At the cost of repetition, we emphasize that no suggestion or even question has been put to these witnesses that the firearms or the cartridges were not recovered from the possession of the appellant. The enunciated principle is that even in cases of defective, faulty and perfunctory investigation, a duty is cast on the court to weigh and evaluate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to see whether they are reliable and trustworthy. If the evidence is found to be reliable then, the negligence of the Investigating Officer cannot stand in the way for disbelieving the testimony of the witnesses. 32. P.W.-6 has testified that the deceased was the munshi of the owner of Grand Shoe Company who had collected the outstanding dues from him. If the evidence is found to be reliable then, the negligence of the Investigating Officer cannot stand in the way for disbelieving the testimony of the witnesses. 32. P.W.-6 has testified that the deceased was the munshi of the owner of Grand Shoe Company who had collected the outstanding dues from him. Though in cross-examination he has stated that the police had not recorded his testimony, but he has not been cross examined or questioned on the fact that the deceased was not known to him. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel that the owner of the Grand Shoe Company was not examined to prove the identity of the deceased is of no consequence given the fact that P.Ws.-2, 3 & 10 have testified about the identity of the deceased. 33. Thus on evaluation and analysis of the evidence as discussed, hereinabove, we find that the prosecution has been able to establish the charge under Sections 302, 392 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act against the appellant, consequently, the judgment of conviction and sentence rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad does not suffer from any illegality or perversity in finding. 34. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, it is held that the prosecution has been able to establish and prove the charge, under the aforesaid sections against the appellant accused. We do not find any perversity or illegality in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge. 35. In the result, this appeal stands dismissed. The appellant is in custody, and he shall undergo the sentence in terms of the Judgment of conviction dated 19th of August, 2010 and Order of sentence dated 27th of August, 2010, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No. 99 of 2008. 36. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this Judgment.