JUDGMENT: K. Lakshman, J. 1. Heard Mrs. G. Jaya Reddy, learned counsel for appellant -accused and Dr. S. Prashanth, learned Assistant Public Prosecutorappearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 16.01.2017 in S.C. No.277 of 2012 passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Nalgonda. 3. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the trial Court convicted the appellant - accused for the offences under Section - 302 of IPC and Section - 27 (2) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 and accordingly sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,000 (Rupees One Thousand Only) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months for the offences each. 4. The case of the prosecution is as follows: i) It is a case of murder occurred on 07.11.2010. ii) Deceased - Ch. Gopi Venkata Narayana was working as Head Constable with G.No.626 at 12 th Battalionb, APSP, Anneparthy, Nalgonda District. PW.5 and LW.7 are wife and brother-in-law of the deceased respectively. iii) The appellant herein is the accused and he was appointed as Police Constable in the same battalion on 01.09.1999. iv) The accused got married to his niece (daughter of his sister), namely Mangamma. She was blessed with a male child, who is a dumb. The accused used to quarrel with her and sent her back to her parents’ house. Thereafter, he divorced her. v) The accused again married PW.14 on 20.05.2002. She was also blessed with two daughters in the years 2003 and 2005 respectively. vi) After giving birth to second daughter, they were staying in Government Quarters at 12 th Battalion, APSP, Anneparthy. Since then, the accused started suspecting the character of PW.14 and used to harass her, both mentally and physically. vii) The deceased was working as Head Constable in the said battalion and he too was residing in the residential quarters of the battalion. The accused observed the deceased was moving closely with his wife and tortured her, both mentally and physically and bore grudge against him. viii) While so, on 23.01.2007, the accused beat his wife indiscriminately under the pretext of she developed illegal sexual relationship with the deceased and caused injuries. The accused observed the deceased was moving closely with his wife and tortured her, both mentally and physically and bore grudge against him. viii) While so, on 23.01.2007, the accused beat his wife indiscriminately under the pretext of she developed illegal sexual relationship with the deceased and caused injuries. Therefore, she lodged a report against him with Women Police Station, Nalgonda, who in turn registered a case in Crime No.20 of 2007 for the offences under Sections - 498A and 324 of IPC. The accused was kept under suspension. Since then, the wife of the accused had been residing at her parent’s house at Suryapet. ix) After one year, suspension orders were revoked and accused started performing duties. Thus, the accused bore grudge against the deceased and waiting for an opportunity to take revenge. x) On 07.11.2010 at 17:00 hours, PW.1 deputed the deceased, accused, PW.2, PW.3 and LW.4 for performing sentry duty at rearguard situated on the first floor of the Upper Primary School, within the premises of battalion headquarters. The guard personnel were allotted with SLR weapons and 100 rounds ammunition each. The deceased took charge as guard in-charge from PW.8. PW.2 mounted on sentry duty from 17:00 hours to 19:00 hours. The accused, who was in waiting and the deceased were present in the guard room while PW.2 was performing the sentry duty by standing in the sentry post which is on the top. The accused taking advantage of the situation, decided to kill the deceased. The accused took his SLR weapon bearing butt No.672, loaded the same and targeted at the deceased. The deceased alerted on hearing the cocking sound of SLR weapon and started climbing the ladder to reach the sentry post on the top to escape from the accused. But, the accused aimed at the deceased and fired four rounds and caused bullet injuries on the chest, abdomen and head of the deceased. As a result of which, the deceased collapsed on the ladder. The accused left the SLR weapon at scene of crime and ran way. PW.2 who witnessed the incident informed the same to his Higher Officials immediately. The injured (HC 626) died while he was being shifted to Government Hospital, Nalgonda for treatment. 5. As a result of which, the deceased collapsed on the ladder. The accused left the SLR weapon at scene of crime and ran way. PW.2 who witnessed the incident informed the same to his Higher Officials immediately. The injured (HC 626) died while he was being shifted to Government Hospital, Nalgonda for treatment. 5. Basing on the report given by PW.1, PW.20 - Inspector of Police, Nalgonda - II Town Circle, registered a case in Crime No.154 of 2010 under Section - 302 of IPC and Section - 27 of the Arms Act and took up investigation. 6. On completion of investigation, PW.20 filed charge sheet against the appellant herein. The same was committed to the trial Court and the same taken on file as S.C. No.277 of 2012. 7. The trial Court framed charges for the offences under Section - 302 of IPC and Section - 27 of the Arms Act against the accused and then proceeded with trial. 8. During trial, PWs.1 to 20 were examined, Exs.P1 to P39 were marked and material objects MOs.1 to 39 were also exhibited. The entry in respect of signature of deceased in Ex.P3 was marked as Ex.D1 on behalf of the accused. 9. After completion of evidence on behalf of the prosecution, the accused was examined under Section - 313 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, upon hearing both sides, the trial Court recorded conviction against the appellant herein for the aforesaid offences and accordingly imposed sentences of imprisonment in the manner stated above. Challenging the said conviction and sentences of imprisonment, the appellant preferred the present appeal. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant - accused contended as follows: i. There was delay in registering FIR. ii. The case was registered based on suspicious circumstances and there was no legally and reliable evidence. iii. There was no evidence to prove motive aspect. Even PW.15, wife of the accused, examined by the prosecution did not support on the said aspect. iv. The name of alleged eye witness (PW.2) was not mentioned in Ex.P1 - report. v. The finger prints of the accused were not traced on MO.1 -weapon. vi. There are contradictions in the deposition of PWs.1 to 4 and not corroborated with medical evidence. vii. As per the evidence of PW.18, the rifle shot was not fired from closed range which was contradictory to the prosecution case. viii. v. The finger prints of the accused were not traced on MO.1 -weapon. vi. There are contradictions in the deposition of PWs.1 to 4 and not corroborated with medical evidence. vii. As per the evidence of PW.18, the rifle shot was not fired from closed range which was contradictory to the prosecution case. viii. The presence of accused at the scene of offence was not proved by PW.2, because there was darkness on the ground floor at 6.45 p.m. ix. As per PW.18 - expert, there is no gunshot residue, detected on the shirt - MO.39 x. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. xi. The trial Court without considering all the said aspects, only on surmises recorded conviction against the accused. With the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel sought to allow the appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused. 11. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit as under: i. PW.2, an eye-witness to the incident, has specifically spoken with regard to his hearing sound of loading the gun from the side of guardroom and shooting the deceased fire with four rounds by the accused with his SLR weapon. ii. There is also other evidence with regard to presence of accused and the deceased at the scene of offence as they were on duty. iii. The prosecution also proved with regard to motive on the part of the accused in commission of offence. iv. There is no dispute with regard to allotment of SLR weapon to the accused and its use in commission of offence by the accused. v. Even the medical evidence and ballistic evidence proved the commission of offence by the accused. vi. The offences committed by the petitioner are serious and grave in nature vii. The prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused failed to rebut the same. viii. Therefore, the trial Court relying on the said evidence arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the aforesaid offences. Therefore, there is no error in it. With the aforesaid submissions, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor sought to dismiss the present appeal. 12. The prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused failed to rebut the same. viii. Therefore, the trial Court relying on the said evidence arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the aforesaid offences. Therefore, there is no error in it. With the aforesaid submissions, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor sought to dismiss the present appeal. 12. In view above rival submissions, the point that falls for consideration by this Court is: Whether the conviction and sentences of imprisonment recorded by the trial Court for the offences under Section - 302 of IPC and Section - 27 (2) of the Arms Act against the appellant herein - accused are sustainable, both on facts and in law? 13. In a criminal case, the cardinal principle is that the accused is presumed to be an innocent till the guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt is a rule of caution laid down by the Courts of Law in respect of assessing the evidence in criminal cases. The general burden of establishing the guilt of accused is always on the prosecution and it never shifts. Even in respect of the cases covered by Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, the prosecution is not absolved of its duty of discharging the burden. It is the utmost duty of the court to assess and analyze both oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution in order to test the credibility and reliability of the prosecution version and also to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the accused committed the offence that has been alleged against him. The paramount consideration of the court is to ensure that the miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice, which may arise from the acquittal of the guilty, is no less than the conviction of an innocent. 14. The main elements of a crime are mens rea (guilty mind), actus reus (guilty act), concurrence (the act and intent must occur at the same time) and causation (the act must cause the harm). To establish criminal liability, a prosecutor must prove that all of these elements are present. Some sources also include other elements, such as a human being and the resulting harm. 15. Section - 302 of IPC defines the crime of murder and its punishment. To establish criminal liability, a prosecutor must prove that all of these elements are present. Some sources also include other elements, such as a human being and the resulting harm. 15. Section - 302 of IPC defines the crime of murder and its punishment. The section states that whoever causes the death of any person with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with knowledge that his act is likely to cause death, is said to commit murder. In simple words, if a person intentionally causes the death of another person, he can be charged with murder under Section 302 of the IPC. It is important to note that the intention of causing death need not be premeditated, and can arise spontaneously in the heat of the moment. 16. The punishment for murder under Section - 302 of the IPC is life imprisonment or death. The Court has the discretion to decide the punishment based on the facts and circumstances of each case. In cases where the murder is committed with exceptional brutality or cruelty, the court may award the death penalty. It is also important to understand the distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Culpable homicide is a lesser offence than murder, and is defined under Section - 304 of the IPC. The difference between the two lies in the intention of the accused. In cases of culpable homicide, the accused may not have had the intention of causing death, but has acted with reckless or negligent behaviour that has led to the death of another person. The accused must have knowingly committed an act that has the potential to cause death. There must be a direct or indirect causal link between the act and the victim’s death. The act must be illegal and not fall under exceptions such as self-defense or accidents. 17. In view the aforesaid elements, now coming to the present case, PW.1, the Reserve Sub-Inspector of Police in 12 th battalion, is the complainant who gave a report to the police with regard to the offence said to have committed by the accused. Thus, the complainant (PW.1) sets the criminal law into motion. According to him, he knows both the accused and deceased. Thus, the complainant (PW.1) sets the criminal law into motion. According to him, he knows both the accused and deceased. As per his evidence, on the date of incident i.e., 07.11.2010, he was posted as Duty Officer from 5.00 A.M. till 8.11.2010 at 5.00 A.M. He also speaks with regard to the deceased and the accused and also other PCs posting as rear guards on the top of Akshara Nursery English Medium School, Anneparthy. PW.2 was also posted as first sentry guard from 5.00 P.M. to 7.00 P.M. on 07.11.2010 at the school building. The deceased was Guard Commander for other police constables at that time. While he was on duty at 6.45 P.M. on 07.11.2010, PW.2 informed him by wireless set that the accused shot fire the deceased with his SLR weapon. Immediately he rushed to the scene of offence where he found the deceased lying on the iron ladder. He shifted the deceased to Government Head Quarters Hospital, Nalgonda, for treatment, but the deceased was declared dead. The doctors found bullet injuries in the dead body of the deceased. The deceased sustained two bullet injuries on the chest. The deceased sustained four bullet injuries totally. He identified the SLR weapon allotted to the accused with Butt No.672 at the time of his duties and the same was marked as MO.1. Ex.P1 is the police report given by him to the police. 18. From the aforesaid evidence of PW.1, it is clear that though PW.1 is not an eye-witness to the incident, but he is a circumstantial witness deposed as to what had transpired in commission of the offence as on the date of incident, the deceased and the accused were on duty and their presence at the scene of offence cannot be ruled out. Nothing was elicited by the defence counsel in his cross-examination to disprove the case of prosecution. Therefore, the evidence of PW.1 is helpful to the case of prosecution. 19. It is apt to note that the accused failed to elicit anything from PW.2 and it is not the case of the accused that PW.2 is inimical towards him. 20. According to the prosecution, PW.2 is the only eye-witness in this case. According to him, on the date of incident, the accused and deceased alone were present at the guardroom. It is apt to note that the accused failed to elicit anything from PW.2 and it is not the case of the accused that PW.2 is inimical towards him. 20. According to the prosecution, PW.2 is the only eye-witness in this case. According to him, on the date of incident, the accused and deceased alone were present at the guardroom. On that day, while he was on duty, at about 6.45 P.M., he heard the sound of loading of gun from the side of guardroom and immediately he looked down from the top of building with dragon light and found the deceased climbing iron ladder and at that same time, the accused shot him fire with four rounds with his SLR weapon. He found two bullet injuries on the chest of the deceased and one bullet injury on the testicles and one bullet injury on the back side of neck of the deceased. After firing the gun with four rounds, the deceased was lying on iron ladder, while accused fled away from the scene of offence after leaving his weapon at the spot. On seeing the blood, he was shocked and informed the same to PW.1 through his wireless set. i) During cross-examination, PW2 has specifically admitted that the deceased sustained bullet injury on his testicles. While deceased was climbing the iron ladder, the accused shot fire at the deceased with his SLR weapon from his front side. Moreover, nothing fruitful was extracted during cross-examination of this witness by the defence. ii) Therefore, the evidence of PW.2 is clear with regard to his witnessing the incident of the accused firing with his SLR weapon at the deceased and the deceased died due to the bullet injuries. 21. PW.3, APSP Police Constable of the same battalion, a circumstantial witness, deposed with regard to his hearing firing sounds on the date of incident and rushing to the spot and shifting the deceased to the hospital etc. 22. PW.4, RSI in the same battalion, is also a circumstantial witness and he deposed about receipt of information from PW.9 and further deposed on the lines of PW.3. PW.7, another RSI, also deposed on the same lines. 23. PW.6, ASI in the said battalion, deposed with regard to allotment of duties to police constables and head constables including the accused and the deceased. PW.7, another RSI, also deposed on the same lines. 23. PW.6, ASI in the said battalion, deposed with regard to allotment of duties to police constables and head constables including the accused and the deceased. He further deposed with regard to accused firing the deceased with his weapon through VHF wireless etc. PW.9, ASI, also deposed on the same lines. 24. PW.8, head constable, deposed with regard to his handing over the charge to the deceased on the date of incident. He also deposed that the accused was also on duty along with the deceased. 25. In view of above evidence, it is not in dispute that the accused and the deceased were on duty on the date of incident. It is also clear that on the date of incident, the accused shot fire the deceased with his SLR weapon and due to the said bullet injuries, the deceased died. 26. Now, it has to be seen whether the bullets found in the dead body of the deceased are belonging to the SLR weapon allotted to the accused or not. 27. PW.10, police constable, deposed with regard to supplying SLR weapons to the deceased, accused, PWs.2 and 3 and made relevant Ex.P3 In and Out Register and also supplying 7.62 SLR weapon to the accused with butt No.672. Ex.P4 is the relevant entry t Serial No.14 in page No.122 of Ex.P3. As per Ex.P4, the accused was given with 100 rounds. He also obtained signature of the accused against the column at Sl.No.14. 28. PW.11, the Assistant Commander in the said battalion, deposed with regard to hearing message of PW.2 to the effect that the accused shot fire the deceased with four bullets. He also inspected the scene of offence, two empty rounds. PW.15 verified the SLR weapon of the accused and found one live bullet and counted the bullet in the magazine and found 96 bullets in that magazine. PW.15 also deposed on the same lines. However, he further deposed that 29. PW.16 is the retired Village Revenue Officer. On the instructions of the Inspector of Police, he along with LW.26 presented to record confessional statement of the accused. PW.15 also deposed on the same lines. However, he further deposed that 29. PW.16 is the retired Village Revenue Officer. On the instructions of the Inspector of Police, he along with LW.26 presented to record confessional statement of the accused. According to him, on their enquiry, the accused informed that the deceased started bad propaganda against his wife and the accused could not tolerate the same and, therefore, he shot the deceased with his gun and left his gun and fled away from the scene of offence. Ex.P13 is the confessional statement of accused. The police also seized MO.39 - blood stained Kaki shirt of the accused under Ex.P14 - cover of mahazar. 30. Thus, it is clear from the evidence of PWs.10, 11, 15 and 16, that the accused used MO.1 - SLR weapon in commission of offence and there is no rebuttal evidence to that effect. 31. To further strengthen the prosecution case to the effect that the deceased died due to the bullet injuries caused by the accused with MO.1, prosecution examined PW.17, the Civil Assistant Surgeon of District Headquarters Hospital, Nalgonda. He conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and found the following external injuries. i. Entry bullet injury on left hypochondrium over the 1th rib margin measuring 1 cm x 1 cm. ii. Exit bullet injury on the back of scapula above right and towards the skin on the occipital area piercing lungs. iii. Entry bullet injury over right back of loin measuring 1 cm x 1 cm. iv. Exit bullet injury below umbilicus measuring 1.4 cms x 2.5 cms piercing the intestine. v. Entry bullet injury over the back of pelvis measuring 0.8 cms x 1 cms, disturbing the bladder. vi. Exist bullet injury at the root of pelvis measuring 1 cms x 1 cms. vii. Entry bullet injury inter scapular area measuring 2.2 cms x 2.4 cms. viii. Exist bullet injury right side of chest 2 in number, measuring 1.5 cms x 1.8 cms, and 1.5 cms x 2.5 cms. 32. The doctor also deposed that there are internal injuries of pleural cavities, lungs, heart, peritoneal cavity, liver, spleen, kidney ruptured. According to him, all the injuries are ante mortem in nature and possible with bullets of firearms. The cause of death was due to hemorrhage with firearm wounds. Ex.P15 post-mortem examination report was issued by him. 32. The doctor also deposed that there are internal injuries of pleural cavities, lungs, heart, peritoneal cavity, liver, spleen, kidney ruptured. According to him, all the injuries are ante mortem in nature and possible with bullets of firearms. The cause of death was due to hemorrhage with firearm wounds. Ex.P15 post-mortem examination report was issued by him. Nothing useful was elicited from him during cross-examination to disprove the case of prosecution. Thus, the medical evidence of PW.17 is clear that the deceased had suffered multiple gunshot injuries. 33. PW.18, Assistant Director in A.P. Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, is also a crucial witness in this case. According to him, he received 13 sealed cloth parcels through the Head Constable No.404 of Nalgonda Rural Police Station with regard to present crime. On all the items, he examined, both physically and chemically. MO.2 (item No.8) found to be empty 7.62 mm caliber (SLR) rifle cartridge cases, MOs.9 and 8 (item Nos.9 and 12) are found to be company made 7.62 mm caliber (SLR) rifle cartridges. MO.1 (item No.10) is 7.62 mm caliber (SLR) rifle, MO.11 (item No.11) is 7.62 mm caliber (SLR) Magazine and Mo.10 (item No.13) is 7.62 caliber (SLR) chargers. 34. According to him, he detected the traces of combustion products of smokeless gun powder on MOs.1 and 2. He also tested MO.1 by loading a cartridge from MO.8 and it is fired well. MO.9 and 8 are found to be live. He also examined MOs.5, 6, 36, 37 and 38. According to him, no gunshot residue is detected on the shirt (MO.39). Ex.P16 is his ballistic opinion. During cross-examination, 2 0 he specifically admitted that the shot was fired not from the close range and that effective range of MO.1 - rifle is 600 yards. 35. It is pertinent to mention that a medical witness plays very important role in courts and helps the Courts in deciding the innocence or guilt of an accused in a criminal case. A medical witness is supposed to be an expert in forensic medicine and should have a fair knowledge of all the branches of medical and ancillary sciences taught to a medical student in the course of studies. A medical witness is supposed to be an expert in forensic medicine and should have a fair knowledge of all the branches of medical and ancillary sciences taught to a medical student in the course of studies. Thus, the evidence of the ballistic expert (PW.18) coupled with that of the doctor (PW.17) clearly indicates that the death was caused due to gunshot injuries sustained by the deceased and that it could not have been a self-inflicted injury. 36. In view of the evidence of above witnesses, it is clear that the accused had committed the offence of causing death of the deceased with the help of MO.1 and the prosecution has proved the same beyond all reasonable doubt and the defence did not adduce any evidence to rebut the same. 37. As discussed above, whether there was motive on the part of the accused to commit the aforesaid offence or not has to be seen. According to the prosecution, the motive for cause of death of the deceased was the deceased had illicit intimacy with the wife of accused. In order to prove the same, prosecution examined PW.5, PW.12 and PW.14 38. According to PW.5, the wife of the deceased deposed that she came to know that the accused suspected there was extra marital relationship between her husband and the wife of accused and that the accused killed her husband with SLR weapon. 39. PW.12 - Police Constable deposed that he knows both the accused and the deceased. He came to know about quarrel between the accused and his wife now and then and about misunderstandings between the accused and the deceased. The wife of the accused left the house and went away. 40. PW.14, wife of the accused, though examined by the prosecution, did not support its case as she turned hostile. 41. PW.19, the Inspector of Police, Nalgonda Circle, deposed with regard to receipt of C.D. file in the subject crime, going to the Hospital and finding the dead body of the deceased and examination of PWs.2, 3, LW.4, PW.4, PW.5, LW.7, PW.6, PW.7, LW.10, PW.8, 2 2 PW.9, PW.10, PW.11, PW.12, PW.15, LW.15, LW.17, LW.19, LW.20 and recording their statements. He also took steps for conducting autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. He also observed scene of offence in the presence of PW.13 and LW.4 under a cover of observation report. He also took steps for conducting autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. He also observed scene of offence in the presence of PW.13 and LW.4 under a cover of observation report. He seized MO.1 - SLR weapon, MO.3 - blood stains, MO.4 - controlled earth, MO.10 - bunch of four charge clips of 7.62 SLR weapon, MOs.5, 6, 36, 37, 38 and 39. He seized other articles belonging to the accused. He also recorded confessional statement of accused vide Ex.P13. He also sent MOs.1 to 11 and 36 to 39 to FSL etc. 42. As discussed supra, the accused bore grudge on the deceased suspecting that he is moving closely with his wife. PW.2 is an eye-witness to the incident. He specifically deposed about the incident. It is settled law that proof of motive, though relevant, is not a sine qua non for sustaining a conviction, particularly where the prosecution otherwise succeeds in establishing the offence beyond reasonable doubt. Motive is essentially a state of mind, often locked within the mental realm of the accused, and by its very nature is difficult, if not impossible, to prove through direct evidence. 43. In State of Gujarat v. Anirudhsing , (1997) 6 SCC 514 , the Apex Court categorically held that absence of proof of motive does not enure to the benefit of the accused when the circumstantial and other evidence on record unerringly points towards his guilt. The Apex Court observed that while proof of motive may add an additional link in the chain of circumstances, its absence cannot, by itself, be a ground to discard the prosecution case once the commission of the offence stands otherwise proved. Therefore, where the prosecution evidence inspires confidence and establishes the culpability of the accused, failure to prove motive does not weaken the prosecution case, nor does it create a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused. 44. PW.20, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, deposed with regard to receipt of report from PW.1 and pursuant thereto registration of crime for the aforesaid offences. Since the offence was grave in nature, he has handed over the C.D. file to PW.19. After completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused. 45. 44. PW.20, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, deposed with regard to receipt of report from PW.1 and pursuant thereto registration of crime for the aforesaid offences. Since the offence was grave in nature, he has handed over the C.D. file to PW.19. After completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused. 45. On an overall examination of the evidence let in by the prosecution, it is clear that there was strong motive on the part of the accused to commit the offence and with such motive only the accused committed the aforesaid offences. Therefore, there is no need to disbelieve the story of prosecution and on the other hand prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is not an ordinary person, he is police constable and is able to understand the consequences of offence if committed. Even it is not an offence committed in a spur of moment. The accused was waiting for an opportunity to take revenge on the deceased and accordingly he committed the offence on 07.11.2010. Thus, there was strong motive on the part of the accused to commit the aforesaid offence and the same was proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and the accused failed to rebut the same. 46. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence let in by the prosecution, it is clear that the accused, a police constable in 12th Battalion strongly suspected that the deceased had illicit intimacy with his wife. This provides a cogent and compelling motive for the crime. The post-mortem report unmistakably concludes that the deceased died due to firearm injury caused by SLR Weapon. The SLR rifle used in the incident was the service weapon issued to the accused. Ammunition count and seizure mahazar corroborates that the bullets fired from this weapon. The bullets from the body, as well as the empty cartridge found at the scene, match the SLR allotted to the accused. The scientific evidence conclusively eliminates any third-party intervention. Both the accused and deceased were on duty at the same place as deposed by PW.2. Thus, the accused had an opportunity and means to commit the offence. All these circumstances form a complete chain in commission of offence by the accused. Thus, the prosecution proved the offence under Section - 302 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt and the accused failed to rebut the same. 47. Thus, the accused had an opportunity and means to commit the offence. All these circumstances form a complete chain in commission of offence by the accused. Thus, the prosecution proved the offence under Section - 302 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt and the accused failed to rebut the same. 47. As far as offence under Section - 27 of the Arms Act is concerned, the trial Court observed the accused used the said fire arm in contravention of his duty for shooting it at his superior, a Head Constable, who was also on duty to settle his personal scores. As the use of the said firearm was unauthorized, he was liable for punishment under the Arms Act. 48. In the light of the said contention, it is apt to note that Section - 27 of the Arms Act deals with ‘punishment for using arms, etc.’ and the same is extracted as under: “ 27. Punishment for using arms, etc. ?(1) Whoever uses any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. (2) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of section 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine. (3) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition or does any act in contravention of section 7 and such use or act results in the death of any other person, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life, or death and shall also be liable to fine.” 49. Sections - 5 and 7 of the Arms Act are also relevant and the same are extracted as under: “ 5. Sections - 5 and 7 of the Arms Act are also relevant and the same are extracted as under: “ 5. Licence for manufacture, sale, etc., of arms and ammunition .?(1) No person shall (a) use, manufacture, obtain, procure, sell, transfer, convert, repair, test or prove, or (b) expose or offer for sale or transfer or have in his possession for sale, transfer, conversion, repair, test or proof, any firearm or any other arms of such class or description as may be prescribed or any ammunition, unless he holds in this behalf a licence issued in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder: (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1), a person may, without holding a licence in this behalf, sell or transfer any arms or ammunition which he lawfully possesses for his own private use to another person who is entitled by virtue of this Act or any other law for the time being in force to have, or is not prohibited by this Act or such other law from having in his possession such arms or ammunition: Provided that no firearm or ammunition in respect of which a licence is required under section 3 and no arms in respect of which a licence is required under section 4 shall be so sold or transferred by any person unless— (a) he has informed in writing the district magistrate having jurisdiction or the officer in charge of the nearest police station of his intention to sell or transfer such firearms, ammunition or other arms and the name and address of the person to whom he intends to sell or transfer such firearms, ammunition or the other arms, and (b) a period of not less than forty-five days has expired after the giving of such information. 7. Prohibition of acquisition or possession, or of manufacture or sale of prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition .?No person shall? (a) acquire, have in his possession or carry; or (b) use, manufacture, sell, transfer, convert, repair, test or prove; or (c) expose or offer for sale or transfer or have in his possession for sale, transfer, conversion, repair, test or proof, any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition unless he has been specially authorised by the Central Government in this behalf.” 50. As discussed above, in the present case, the crime weapon was provided to the accused by the Department for official use. He has misused the said weapon. However, it is neither a prohibited arm nor he has used it without license i.e., though the accused was authorized to possess the said weapon, he made use of it unauthorizedly. 51. In Surinder Singh v. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh) , (2021) 20 SCC 24 , the Apex Court also clarified the application of Section - 27 of the Arms Act. The Court noted that an amendment in 1988 changed Section - 27, and a conviction now requires proof that the use or possession violated Section - 5 or Section - 7 of the Act. The Supreme Court concluded that while such misuse could lead to charges under the Indian Penal Code (like murder under Section 302) and potentially disciplinary action, a separate conviction under Section - 27 of the Arms Act is not valid unless a violation of specific licensing conditions is shown. Based on this judgment, a conviction under Section - 27 of the Arms Act for misusing a service weapon would likely be overturned on appeal, although convictions for other crimes under the IPC would still be applicable if proven. In the light of the same, charge under Section - 27 (2) of the Arms Act is liable to be set aside. 52. For the foregoing discussion, this appeal is allowed in part setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant - accused for the offence under Section - 27 (2) of the Arms Act. However, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant - accused for the charge under Section - 302 of IPC vide judgment dated 16.01.2017 in S.C. No.277 of 2012 by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, is confirmed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.