JUDGMENT & ORDER : N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J. Heard Mr. A. Dhar, and Mr. D. Ghosh, learned counsels, appearing on behalf of the appellant. Also heard Ms. Topi Jini, and Mr. Gyati Tado, learned Additional Public Prosecutors, Arunachal Pradesh, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1, and Ms. Sum Valentine Darang, learned legal-aid-counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2/informant. 2. The instant appeal has been instituted by the appellant, herein, assailing the judgment, dated 01.04.2022, passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Khonsa, Tirap District, in Khonsa Sessions Case No. 14/2021, convicting the appellant under Section 307/326 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 25(1B)(a)/27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959. The appellant, herein, has also assailed the order of sentence, dated 07.04.2022, sentencing the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life and payment of a fine of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 307/326 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as the further sentencing to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3(three) years and payment of a fine of Rs. 5000/- under Section 25(1B)(a)/27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959, and in default of payment of fine; to undergo simple imprisonment for 3(three) months. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The facts requisite leading to the institution of the present proceeding, is noticed as under: On 28.12.2020, Shri Shiladita Chakma, as informant, lodged an First Information Report(FIR) before the Miao Police Station, inter alia, contending that on 27.12.2020, at around 7PM, his elder brother Rabindra Chakma informed him that one Shri Bhakta Chakma, appellant, herein, of the same village, had shot him with a local made gun(Chakma gun) from the backside while he was returning home from the agricultural field at about 6-6:30PM. It was further incorporated in the said First Information Report(FIR) that his elder brother had sustained bullet injuries on his body and in a serious condition, was taken to CHC, Miao, from where, he was referred to Margherita Civil Hospital. Thereafter, the elder brother of the informant was referred to Dibrugarh for further treatment. On receipt of the said FIR, the police registered a case being Miao PS Case No. 16/2020 under Section 307/326 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 25(1B)(a)/27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959. Thereafter, the elder brother of the informant was referred to Dibrugarh for further treatment. On receipt of the said FIR, the police registered a case being Miao PS Case No. 16/2020 under Section 307/326 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 25(1B)(a)/27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959. The appellant, herein, was detained and basing on his disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the weapon of offence was recovered from a bamboo groove near the house of one Shri Anil Kumar Chakma at Newton village wherein the same was kept concealed after commission of the offence by the appellant, herein. The police had also recovered another gun manufactured by the appellant, herein, and sold to one Hichi Chakma. On conclusion of the investigation, the I.O. submitted the charge-sheet in the matter on 26.03.2021, against the appellant, herein, under Section 307/326 of the Indian Penal Code. It was stated in the said charge- sheet that a supplementary charge-sheet under the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959, would be submitted on receipt of the FSL report. On submission of the charge-sheet under Section 307/326 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant, herein; the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Changlang, vide order, dated 25.08.2021, proceeded to commit the case to the Court of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Khonsa, along with all case records and materials. On the matter being committed before the Sessions Court, the learned District & Sessions Judge, Khonsa, proceeded to frame the charge against the appellant, herein, under Section 307/326 of the Indian Penal Code, vide order, dated 14.09.2021. On receipt of the FSL report with regard to the weapon of offence used by the appellant, herein, to commit the offence, involved in the matter and also on receipt of the prosecution sanction from the competent authority for proceeding against the appellant under the provisions of Section 39 of the Arms Act, 1959, on 20.05.2021; a supplementary charge- sheet, dated 11.11.2021, came to be filed in the matter and therein, a charge under Section 25(1B)(a)/27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959, also came to be levelled against the appellant, herein. Accordingly, on receipt of the supplementary charge-sheet, dated 11.11.2021; the learned District & Sessions Judge, Khonsa, proceeded to frame the charge against the appellant, herein, under Section 25(1B) (a)/27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959. Accordingly, on receipt of the supplementary charge-sheet, dated 11.11.2021; the learned District & Sessions Judge, Khonsa, proceeded to frame the charge against the appellant, herein, under Section 25(1B) (a)/27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959. It is to be noted that the appellant, herein, was provided with a legal- aid-counsel to assist him in his defence and the legal-aid-counsel was present at the time of framing of the charge against the appellant, herein, and had conducted the trial on behalf of the appellant. During the trial, the prosecution had examined as many as16(sixteen) witnesses. The appellant, herein, was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. However, the appellant had not adduced any defence witness. On conclusion of the trial; the learned trial Court proceeded, vide its judgment, dated 01.04.2022, to convict the appellant, herein, under the provisions of Section 307/326 of the Indian Penal Code and also under the provisions of Section 25(1B)(a)/27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959. The matter was, thereafter, fixed on 07.04.2022, for hearing on the quantum of sentence. Upon hearing the appellant, herein, and also, the learned counsel representing the appellant; the learned trial Court, vide order, dated 07.04.2022, proceeded to sentence the appellant, herein, to undergo imprisonment for life and for payment of a fine of Rs. 50,000/- for the offence of attempt to murder and causing grievous hurt with dangerous weapon under Section 307/326 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3(three) years and payment of a fine of Rs. 5000/- for the offence of manufacturing and possessing muzzle loading gun punishable under Section 25(1B)(a)/27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959, and in default of payment of fine; he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 3(three) months in addition to the above sentences. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. Being aggrieved, the appellant, herein, has instituted the present proceeding before this Court. 4. Mr. Dhar, learned counsel for the appellant, herein, at the outset, has submitted that the defence of the appellant was prejudiced on account of the fact that the legal-aid-counsel as appointed in his case, did not have the requisite experience of 10 years of conducting criminal cases. Mr. 4. Mr. Dhar, learned counsel for the appellant, herein, at the outset, has submitted that the defence of the appellant was prejudiced on account of the fact that the legal-aid-counsel as appointed in his case, did not have the requisite experience of 10 years of conducting criminal cases. Mr. Dhar, learned counsel, has further submitted that the legal-aid-counsel had not properly cross-examined the prosecution witnesses and had only cross- examined a few of them and that too, by asking one or two questions, only, and accordingly, the defence of the appellant was prejudiced. 5. Mr. Dhar, learned counsel, has submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok v. State of U.P ., reported in 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 1120 , laid down that in cases where offences are of a very serious nature and complicated legal and factual issues are involved; the Court, instead of appointing an empanelled legal aid Advocate, may appoint a senior member of Bar who has vast experience of conducting trials to espouse cause of the accused, so that the accused gets best possible legal assistance. The learned counsel has further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision, had laid down that in all cases where there is a possibility of life sentence or death sentence, only, those Advocates who have put in a minimum of 10 years of practice on the criminal side, should be considered to be appointed as amicus curiae or as a legal aid Advocate. 6. Mr. Dhar, learned counsel, has further submitted that the legal-aid- counsel as appointed for the defence of the appellant, herein, before the learned trial Court, not having matched the requisite experience criteria as mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above-noted decision as well as in its earlier decisions on the issue, the defence of the appellant having been compromised; the impugned judgment, dated 01.04.2022, would call for an interference with a direction for a re-trial by extending to the appellant, herein, a competent legal-aid-counsel meeting the criteria as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision, referred to above. 7. Mr. Dhar, learned counsel, by drawing our attention to the disclosure statement of the appellant, herein, under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, has submitted that in the said disclosure statement; no time and/or date of recording the same, has been mentioned. 7. Mr. Dhar, learned counsel, by drawing our attention to the disclosure statement of the appellant, herein, under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, has submitted that in the said disclosure statement; no time and/or date of recording the same, has been mentioned. The learned counsel has further submitted that the recovery memo pertaining to the recovery of the weapon of offence i.e. “Khanja Banduk” (local made gun), was so shown to be recovered on 26.12.2020. However, the First Information Report(FIR) lodged by the respondent No. 2, herein, in the matter, would go to reveal that the offence had occasioned on 27.12.2020, at around 6–6.30 PM. The learned counsel has further submitted that the said inconsistency existing in the disclosure statement as well as the recovery memo, goes to the root of the matter and the proceeding so instituted against the appellant, herein, having been vitiated on account of the same; the impugned judgment, dated 01.04.2022, as well as the order, dated 07.04.2022, would mandate an interference from this Court. 8. Mr. Dhar, learned counsel, continuing with the inconsistency existing with regard to the manner in which the weapon of offence was so recovered, has referred to the depositions of PW-6 and PW-8 who were the seizure witnesses and has submitted that even in their depositions, there is no reflection of the time and/or date of recovery of the weapon of offence involved. Accordingly, the learned counsel has submitted that the said inconsistency so arising, has given rise to a doubt, as to whether the weapon of offence so stated to be recovered, was actually the weapon of offence allegedly used by the appellant, herein, for the commission of the offence involved and the learned counsel has, therefore, submitted that the benefit of doubt, in this connection, has to be extended to the appellant, herein, and he is to be acquitted in the matter. 9. Mr. Dhar, learned counsel, has further submitted that another “Khanja Banduk”(local made gun) was recovered from one Shri Hichi Chakma and the same was so seized in the Police Station. The learned counsel has submitted that in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses before the learned trial Court, a contradiction exists as regards the local gun which was allegedly used by the appellant, herein, for shooting upon the victim. The learned counsel has submitted that in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses before the learned trial Court, a contradiction exists as regards the local gun which was allegedly used by the appellant, herein, for shooting upon the victim. The learned counsel has also submitted that even the Exhibit No. assigned to the gun which actually was the weapon of offence, is also clouded. Accordingly, the learned counsel has submitted that the said inconsistency has the effect of not connecting the appellant, herein, to the weapon of offence and accordingly, the benefit of doubt so arising in the matter, has to be given to the appellant and accordingly, he is to be acquitted from the offence involved. 10. In the above premises, Mr. Dhar, learned counsel, has submitted that the judgment, dated 01.04.2022, of the learned trial Court, having not considered the said issue of the matter which was glaring on the face of the records, has vitiated the said judgment, dated 01.04.2022, rendering the same unsustainable and accordingly, the same calls for an interference by this Court. Consequently, the appellant, herein, is liable to be acquitted from the charge so levelled against him. 11. Mr. Dhar, learned counsel for the appellant, after having submitted in the manner, as noticed hereinabove, has submitted that the appellant, herein, had no enmity with the victim(PW-3) and the same was also brought on record by way of deposition of the victim himself. The learned counsel has submitted that the appellant, herein, did not have any criminal antecedents and further, the materials brought on record, would go to demonstrate that the appellant had not fired upon the victim(PW-3) with the intention to kill him. The learned counsel has further submitted that the materials brought on record does not justify the sentencing of the appellant, herein, to undergo imprisonment for life under the provisions of Section 307/326 of the Indian Penal Code, and accordingly, he has prayed that this Court would be pleased to modify the sentence to the period of detention already undergone by the appellant, herein. In support of his submissions, Mr. Dhar, learned counsel, has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurmukh Singh v. State of Haryana, reported in (2009) 15 SCC 635 . 12. Per contra, Ms. Jini, learned Addl. In support of his submissions, Mr. Dhar, learned counsel, has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurmukh Singh v. State of Haryana, reported in (2009) 15 SCC 635 . 12. Per contra, Ms. Jini, learned Addl. P.P., Arunachal Pradesh, has submitted that in the recovery memo(Ext.P/4); although the date has been recorded as 26.12.2020, the same is clarified with the words “after committing the crime”. The learned Addl. P.P., Arunachal Pradesh, has further submitted that the said clarification would indicate that the date recorded in the recovery memo, was so done on account of a typographical error. The learned Addl. P.P., Arunachal Pradesh, by referring to the deposition of the initial I.O. viz. Smti. Niyi Angu(PW-12), has submitted that the manner of recovery of the weapon of offence was clarified by her and it was categorically stated that the weapon of offence was recovered on being led by the appellant, herein, and in terms of his disclosure statement. The initial I.O.(PW-12) had also categorically stated that she had seized another “Khanja Banduk” i.e. local made gun, which was manufactured by the appellant, herein, and sold it to another villager. 13. Ms. Jini, learned Addl. P.P., Arunachal Pradesh, by referring to the statements made by the victim Rabindra Chakma(PW-3), in his examination-in-chief, the PW-3 had categorically stated that he was fired upon with a gun by the appellant, herein, and he had seen the appellant running away towards the agricultural field holding a gun in his hand. The learned Addl. P.P., Arunachal Pradesh, has further stated that during the cross-examination of PW-3, his deposition during examination-in-chief, remained un-rebutted and nothing could be elicited by the appellant from PW-3 during his cross, thereby, fortifying the deposition as made by him during his examination-in-chief. 14. Ms. Jini, learned Addl. P.P., Arunachal Pradesh, has further submitted that the victim(PW-3) and the appellant, herein, being the residents of the same village, they were known to each other and accordingly, the identification of the appellant by the victim(PW-3) as the aggressor, would not raise any doubt even though the learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that the incident, in question, had occasioned during the night time. The learned Addl. The learned Addl. P.P., Arunachal Pradesh, has submitted that the appellant had failed to elicit from the victim as to the manner in which he could have identified the appellant, herein, and in the absence of any material being brought on record at the instance of the appellant; the deposition of PW-3 who is the eye-witness, cannot be doubted and would be sufficient for conviction of the appellant, herein. 15. Ms. Jini, learned Addl. P.P., Arunachal Pradesh, by referring to the depositions of the other prosecution witnesses who had, either, heard the sound of the firing of a gun and/or were informed by the victim that he was shot at by the appellant, herein, and accordingly, has submitted that the statement made by the PW-3 has been duly corroborated by the statements of the other prosecution witnesses. 16. Ms. Jini, learned Addl. P.P., Arunachal Pradesh, by referring to the deposition of PW-16 i.e. Dr. Aminul Islam, has submitted that the fact that the appellant had suffered grievous injuries on his body, is undisputed and for the said purpose; the learned Addl. P.P., Arunachal Pradesh, has also placed reliance on the injury report of the victim i.e. PW-3. Accordingly, the learned Addl. P.P., Arunachal Pradesh, has submitted that the case against the appellant, herein, under Section 307/326 of the Indian Penal Code, has been clearly made-out. 17. Ms. Jini, learned Addl. P.P., Arunachal Pradesh, by referring to the FSL report along with the deposition of PW-13 i.e. the subsequent I.O., who had exhibited the FSL report; has submitted that the FSL report goes to reveal that the weapon of offence was in working condition and was able to endanger human life. She further submitted that the firearm was possessed by the appellant without a license, and accordingly, the same came within the purview of the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959. Ms. Jini, learned Addl. P.P., by relying on the deposition of PW-5 i.e. Hichi Chakma, has submitted that the fact that the appellant was also involved in the manufacture and sale of local made gun without license having also been established; the conviction and sentencing of the appellant, herein, under Section 25(1B) (a)/27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959, stood established. 18. Ms. Jini, learned Addl. 18. Ms. Jini, learned Addl. P.P., Arunachal Pradesh, has further submitted that the plea of the learned counsel for the appellant, herein, that the appellant’s defence was prejudiced on account of the inexperience of the legal-aid-counsel as appointed in his case by the learned trial Court, is clearly misplaced, in-as-much as, no material has been brought on record by the appellant to demonstrate that the legal-aid-counsel so appointed, did not have the requisite experience. The learned Addl. P.P., Arunachal Pradesh, has submitted that in a remote place like Khonsa, it would not be possible to have counsels with the requisite experience, as projected by the learned counsel for the appellant. Ms. Jini, has further submitted that in the event, the appellant had any issue with regard to the legal-aid-counsel so appointed in his case, it was always open to him to approach the learned trial Court with an application for changing the counsel so appointed. However, it has been submitted by the learned Addl. P.P., Arunachal Pradesh, that the appellant never raised any issue in this connection during the trial of the case and accordingly, she has submitted that the said contention as raised by the appellant, moreso, in view of the overwhelming evidence coming on record against the appellant, herein, connecting him with the offence, would not mandate an acceptance from this Court. 19. Ms. Jini, learned Addl. P.P., Arunachal Pradesh, with regard to the issue of sentencing of the appellant, herein, has submitted that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurmukh Singh (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, herein, as well as the mitigating circumstances highlighted by Mr. Dhar, learned counsel for the appellant; this Court may be pleased to re-consider the sentencing of the appellant, herein. However, the learned Addl. P.P., Arunachal Pradesh, has submitted that the appellant, herein, in view of the fact that the charge under Section 307/326 of the Indian Penal Code, has been established beyond reasonable doubt, would be entitled to a minimum penalty which ought not to be below 10(ten) years of imprisonment. 20. Ms. Darang, the learned legal-aid-counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2/informant; while adopting the submissions so advanced by Ms. Jini, learned Addl. 20. Ms. Darang, the learned legal-aid-counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2/informant; while adopting the submissions so advanced by Ms. Jini, learned Addl. P.P., Arunachal Pradesh, as noted-above, by referring to the injury report of the victim as well as the statement of PW-3 i.e. victim, has submitted that the bullet injuries so sustained by him on account of the appellant, herein, shooting him; had resulted in serious injury to the victim rendering him bed-ridden and paralyzed. The learned counsel has further submitted that on account of the injury so sustained; the victim is not in a position to even work. Accordingly, the learned counsel has submitted that the grievous injury sustained by the victim is covered by the 8th circumstance as set-out in the definition of grievous hurt under Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the learned counsel has submitted that the conviction and sentencing of the appellant by the learned trial Court, would not mandate any interference. 21. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 22. At the outset, we would proceed to examine the depositions of the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution had adduced evidence of as many as 16(sixteen) witnesses in the matter. The only eye-witness is the victim himself. 22.1. PW-1 Dirghao Maya Chakma has deposed that he has seen the accused person earlier but he does not know his name. Rabindra Chakma the victim in present case is his elder brother. On 27 December 2020, at about 6:30 PM, he has received a phone call from the son of Rabindra Chakma who informed him that someone has fired Rabindra Chakma with a gun. Dirghao immediately rushed to the spot and seen his elder brother Rabindra Chakma was lying within pool of blood. He has seen that Rabindra was injured on his right arm, back and hit by palates and was profusely bleeding. Rabindra was covered by a blanket. Dirghao immediately took him to CHC, Miao, for his treatment. While going to the hospital, Dirghao entered to Police Station and gave information about the matter. During that time he was asked by Police that FIR may be filed on next day but Rabindra Chakma should be immediately taken to hospital as his condition was serious. Dirghao immediately took him to CHC, Miao, for his treatment. While going to the hospital, Dirghao entered to Police Station and gave information about the matter. During that time he was asked by Police that FIR may be filed on next day but Rabindra Chakma should be immediately taken to hospital as his condition was serious. During that time, the police personnel had asked Rabindra as to who had fired on him, Rabindra Chakma has told that Bhakta had fired on him. On the next day, Siladita Chakma has filed the FIR. Dirghao immediately took Rabindra Chakma to hospital and there he was examined by Dr. Khimhun. As he was seriously injured, Dirghao was suggested to take Rabindra to Dibrugarh for treatment. During the night itself, they took Rabindra Chakma to Srimanta Sankar Dev Hospital and Research Institute, Dibrugarh, for treatment. Several examinations were conducted and Rabindra Chakma was operated, two of the pellets are taken out from his body I.e., arms and back but one of the pellet which hit on hip could not be taken out as doctor has told that said operation will be detrimental to his life. The palate which hit on the hip near backbone is still in his body, due to which he could not walk and almost paralyzed. Rabindra could not appear before this Court for examination as he cannot walk. After about a week of treatment, Rabindra Chakma was released from hospital as they could not manage money for his further treatment. Dirghao enquired who and why fired gunshot upon Rabindra. Rabindra Chakma told Dirghao that on the date of incident after harvesting mustard seeds, he (Rabindra) went to the residence of Songlima in search of his pet dog and he sat by the fire for a while. While coming back to his residence and about to reach his home, accused standing on the dock (who is known as Bhakta) has fired on him with an SBML gun. After coming from Dibrugarh Dirghao was called to Police Station and his statement was recorded by the IO. During that time, accused Bhakta was also called for his examination. Dirghao heard Bhakta confessing before the IO that he has fired Rabindra Chakma with an SBML gun but he did not have any intention to kill. Rabindra Chakma was having good relation with Bhakta. During that time, accused Bhakta was also called for his examination. Dirghao heard Bhakta confessing before the IO that he has fired Rabindra Chakma with an SBML gun but he did not have any intention to kill. Rabindra Chakma was having good relation with Bhakta. In presence of Dirghao, accused disclosed before the IO that he was having two SBML gun. IO has recorded disclosure statement of Bhakta and recovered SBML gun as led by him. Dirghao put his signature in the disclosure statement as witness. He has exhibited the disclosure statement and his signature. During cross examination, he has stated that when his elder brother Rabindra Chakma was shot, he was present at his residence which is situated at about 6 Km distance. He has not seen who has fired upon Rabindra Chakma. He is told by Rabindra Chakma that during the time of firing no one has seen but everyone has heard the firing sound. Dirghao further stated that he does not know if there was any enmity between Rabindra Chakma and the accused. 22.2. PW-2 Shri Siladita Chakma is the informant in the case. He deposed that he was called by his elder brother namely Rabindra Chakma and told that he is fired by someone. Siladita rushed and found his elder brother at hospital. He has seen that his brother is injured and was bleeding. He was told by Rabindra Chakma for filing an FIR before Police Station. Accordingly, as per the instruction of Rabindra Chakma, he has lodged an FIR at Diyun Police Station. He does not know the accused person standing on the dock but he was told by Rabindra Chakma the accused has fired on him by a SBML gun. Siladita has exhibited the FIR and his signature. During cross examination he has stated that he has not seen who fired on Rabindra Chakma but Rabindra Chakma has seen that accused has fired on him. Rabindra Chakma called him to come and told that he is fired by a gun. 22.3. PW-3 Shri Rabindra Chakma the victim in present case has deposed that he knows the accused person standing on the dock. His name is Bhakta who resides near his agricultural field. He has no enmity with accused. Rabindra Chakma called him to come and told that he is fired by a gun. 22.3. PW-3 Shri Rabindra Chakma the victim in present case has deposed that he knows the accused person standing on the dock. His name is Bhakta who resides near his agricultural field. He has no enmity with accused. During evening at about 5:50 PM of 27th December last year while going back to his home, accused Bhakta had shot him with a gun near his compound. Pellets hit him on his back, waist and shoulder. When Rabindra sustained injury and fell down, he was shouting for help then he saw accused Bhakta running away towards agricultural field holding a gun on his hand. Hearing sound of Rabindra, his wife came near to him, he told her that Bhakta fired him with a gun. Thereafter his brothers took him to CHC Miao, but as his injury was serious, he was referred to Margherita Hospital, thereafter he was again referred to Hospital at Dibrugarh for his treatment. At Dibrugarh he was operated and three pellets are taken out from his body i.e. hand shoulder and back. But one of the pellets which hit on lower back of his body is stuck inside his back bone which could not be taken out till date. Due to the bullet injury, he cannot walk or stand. Now he is lying on bed as lower part of his body got paralysed. He has no money to continue with his treatment. Due to the injury he cannot even work. Rabindra further stated that expenditure of his treatment should be born out by Bhakta. During cross examination, he has stated that he has seen Bhakta on the place of occurrence with the gun on his hand. He was fired from his back. After he was fired, he has seen Bhakta. 22.4. PW-4 Shri Anil Kumar Chakma has deposed that he know the accused person standing on the dock. His name is Bhakta who is his brother-in-law. Before about 10 months from the day of recording evidence, one day at about 3 PM Bhakta Chakma came to their residence. Since he was to go to his native village for attending his work, he went away at about 4PM, during that time Bhakta was at his residence. At about 9 PM he returned back to his residence and found Bhakta at his residence. Since he was to go to his native village for attending his work, he went away at about 4PM, during that time Bhakta was at his residence. At about 9 PM he returned back to his residence and found Bhakta at his residence. He does not know about the case. 22.5. PW-5 is Hichi Chakma has deposed that he know the accused person standing on the dock. His name is Bhakta who used to make Khaja bonduk (SBML gun). Once he had purchased one SBML gun from Bhakta for an amount of Rs 800/-. After about one month of his purchase of gun Bhakta has fired upon Rabindra. During that time he was in the jungle for cutting timber. Bhakta was arrested by Police, where Bhakta disclosed about selling a gun to him. Police and Bhakta came to their residence in search of SBML gun. When he came back, his wife told him about the incident, accordingly he produced the SBML gun before Police Station as asked. He has exhibited the SBML gun which he purchased from Bhakta Chakma. 22.6. PW-6 Shri Bichungya Chakma one of seizure witness has deposed that Police has seized one SBML gun in his presence. As per instruction of the Police Officer he put his signature as witness of the seizure. He has also put his signature on Police station on another memo. He has exhibited the seizure memo, recovery memo, SBML gun which was seized by police in his presence. During cross examination he has stated that the gun is recovered from bamboo grooves. 22.7. PW-7 Shri Chandranath Chakma has deposed that he know the accused person standing on the dock. He is Bhakta. Residence of Chandranath is situated near the place of occurrence. During the month of December one day at about 6 PM he has heard gun firing sound. When he came out from his residence, he heard the shouting that Bhakta has fired ( Bhakta ee goli marise ). Chandranath went to the place of occurrence and seen that Rabindra was injured. He has seen wife of Rabindra and his son. After sometime brother of Rabindra came there and he was taken to hospital. 22.8. PW-8 Smti Nitimukhi Chakma another seizure witness has deposed that he knows the accused person standing on the dock. He is Bhakta. She does not know about the case. He has seen wife of Rabindra and his son. After sometime brother of Rabindra came there and he was taken to hospital. 22.8. PW-8 Smti Nitimukhi Chakma another seizure witness has deposed that he knows the accused person standing on the dock. He is Bhakta. She does not know about the case. One SBML gun belongs to Bhakta was recovered by Police from Bamboo groove. She has exhibited the seizure memo and recovery memo containing his thumb impression. She has also exhibited the seized gun. During cross examination she has stated that seized gun was recovered from bamboo grooves in the jungle. 22.9. PW-9 Smti Sadanadevi Chakma has deposed that accused standing on the dock is Bhakta who is her husband. On the date of incident she along with her husband went to the residence of Anil Chakma who is brother-in-law of her husband. As asked by Anil she was cooking dinner. During that time Anil went to the village for finding some money. During that time her husband Bhakta Chakma also went away but she does not know where they went as she was busy at the kitchen. As per the prayer of P.P., witness is declared hostile and learned PP is allowed to cross-examine the witness. During cross examination by the P.P., she has stated that on the date of occurrence she along with Bhakta went to the residence of Anil Chakma at Neotan village. She has stated that at about 4:30 PM Anil Chakma went to the village for collecting money. She also stated that after sometime her husband also went away from the residence. After about 2-3 hours Bhakta came back to the residence of Anil Chakma. They stayed for the night at the residence of Anil Chakma and next day morning they returned to their residence. Later on she heard that her husband Bhakta Chakma fired upon Rabindra with SBML gun. She heard that Rabindra was taken to hospital. She has disclosed before Police that her husband was having illicit relationship with Shanti Devi Chakma and he disclosed her that he is willing to marry her. 22.10. PW-10 is Smti Shanti Devi Chakma, she identified the accused as Bhakta Chakma. She deposed that last year one day her brother-in-law Rabindra came to her residence. When he went back he was fired by Bhakta. 22.10. PW-10 is Smti Shanti Devi Chakma, she identified the accused as Bhakta Chakma. She deposed that last year one day her brother-in-law Rabindra came to her residence. When he went back he was fired by Bhakta. Rabindra raised hue and cry, she went there and seen he was seriously injured. During that time Rabindra has told her that he was fired by Bhakta. 22.11. PW-11 Smti Shanti Bala Chakma has deposed that accused standing on the dock is Bhakta. Last year one day her husband Rabindra went to visit the residence of Shanti and when he was coming back accused Bhakta Chakma fired on him. During that time she was at her residence. She heard the sound of gunfire and heard her husband calling her. When she went there, she saw her husband in injured condition. She asked who assaulted him, her husband told that Bhakta has fired on him. Her husband was taken to hospital for treatment. 22.12. PW-12 Smti Niyi Angu is the investigating officer in present case, she deposed that on 28-12-2020, at 1203 hrs, one written FIR is received from Shri Siladita Chakma of Shantipur alleging that on 27-12-2020 alleged accused Bhakta Chakma shot his brother with a local made gun in his agricultural field while returning home. It is Informed that his brother namely Rabindra Chakma has sustained bullet injury and he is taken to CHC, Miao, from there he is referred to Margherita for further treatment. On receipt of the FIR, she has registered Miao PS Case No. 16/20 U/S 307/326 IPC R/W Sec. 25(1A)/27(1) Arms Act and undertook the investigation of the same. During investigation, she has examined the informant and recorded his statement. She went to CHC, Miao to examine the victim and requisition for MLC was submitted to concerned EMO Dr. T. Khimhun. Smti Niyi Angu is informed by the EMO that the victim sustained four bullet injuries and as proper facility of medication is not available at CHC, Miao, the victim is forwarded to Margherita for further treatment. On the same day she has arrested accused Bhakta Chakma from his residence. On interrogation, he has admitted commission of the offence. Accused was medically examined and produced before Court. The place of occurrence was deposed to have been visited on being led by the accused. On the same day she has arrested accused Bhakta Chakma from his residence. On interrogation, he has admitted commission of the offence. Accused was medically examined and produced before Court. The place of occurrence was deposed to have been visited on being led by the accused. The place of occurrence was thoroughly searched and the I.O. had drawn rough sketch map of PO and photographs were taken. On the PO, IO has found some blood stain but no cartridge was found. The accused has disclosed about hiding of the weapon of offence which is locally known as "Khanja Banduk". Accordingly, she has prepared disclosure memo as provided U/S 27 of Indian Evidence Act. On being led by the accused, weapon of offence is recovered from a bamboo grove of Neoton Village near the residence of Anil Chakma. IO has prepared the seizure memo of the weapon of offence in front of accused. IO has seized another Khanja Banduk which was made by the accused and the same was sold by him to another villager. After medical treatment and examination, he has examined the victim and recorded statement. It is disclosed that the victim is fired by accused from backside. He has seized the medical documents of the victim on being produced by the informant. He has submitted requisition for MLC to the concern hospital Shrimanta Shankar Dev Research Institute and Hospital, Dibrugarh. IO has forwarded the seized banduk for FSL examination. She has also examined other witnesses who are acquainted with the fact and circumstances of the present case. On 28-01-2021, she has handed over the case diary to her relieving officer as she was transferred out from Miao PS. She has exhibited the disclosure statement, FIR, seizure memo, recovery memo, seizure memo of local made Khanja Banduk, local made Khanja Banduk seized by her and her signatures. During cross examination IO has stated that she has examined all the witnesses and victim has stated before her that he had fired. After seizure of the gun, IO has not sealed the same. She has not taken finger prints. 22.13. PW-13 Shri Jano Aran second Investigating Officer has deposed that case diary of present case was handed over to him by the previous Investigation Officer Inspector N. Angu for further investigation. After seizure of the gun, IO has not sealed the same. She has not taken finger prints. 22.13. PW-13 Shri Jano Aran second Investigating Officer has deposed that case diary of present case was handed over to him by the previous Investigation Officer Inspector N. Angu for further investigation. His part of investigation started from issuance of requisition for collection of injury report which was submitted to the medical superintendent Shrimanta Shankar Mahadeva Research Institute, Dibrugarh, and accordingly, he was furnished with the injury report and three numbers of palates which has been seized on being produced by Dr. Ananta Saikia and Dr. Ramesh Sha, wherein they opined that there are two puncture wounds on backside of left arm, one puncture wound on left buttock and another at L3 spinal level in the mid line. The nature of injury as opined by the examining doctors is grievous in nature. As most of the investigation was completed he submitted the case into charge sheet vide Miao Police Station charge sheet No. 01/2021 U/S 307/326 IPC. However, FSL report of the seized arms was yet to be received from FSL PTC, Banderdewa. Along with FSL report, prosecution sanction was also yet to be received. Further, on receipt of the prosecution sanction, under 39 Arms Act accorded against accused Bhakta Chakma and receipt of FSL report from PTC, Banderdewa, wherein Inspector Sujoy Das Ballistic expert, AP FSL, PTC Banderdewa opined that item 01 is a country made SBML gun which is marked as MR No. 07/21 in the exhibit marking. Inspector Sujoy Das has further opined item 01 is in working order and can endanger human life and comes under purview of Arms Act. Accordingly, supplementary charge sheet U/S 25(1A)/ 27(1) Arms Act was also submitted against the alleged accused Bhakta Chakma. IO Jano Aran has exhibited the disclosure statement, FIR, seizure memo, recovery memo, seizure memo of local made Khanja Banduk, sketch map of PO, prosecution sanction U/S 39 of Arms Act, FSL report of seized Khanja Banduk, exhibit challan, seizure memo of three number of pellets, injury report of the victim, charge sheet submitted by him, supplementary charge sheet submitted by him, local made Khanja Banduk seized in the case and his signatures. During cross examination IO Jano Aran has stated that he has submitted the charge sheet in present case basing upon the case diary and the report of FSL and medical report of the victim. 22.14. PW-14 Shri Mangal Chakma a seizure witness has deposed that one day Police Personnel recovered two Khanja Banduk from their village. He was called to Police Station to sign the seizure memo as witness. Accordingly, he signed the seizure memo. He cannot recognized the gun. He has exhibited the seizure memo of Khanja Banduk and his signature therein. 22.15. PW-15 Shri Lakhidhan Chakma a seizure witness has deposed that one Hatche Chakma is his friend. He purchased one muzzle loading gun from someone. Hatche was called by the Officer-in-Charge of Miao PS. He asked Lakhidhan to accompany to the PS as he did not have any vehicle. Accordingly, Lakhidhan took Hatche to Miao PS. Hatche took one muzzle loading gun for depositing at the PS. Along with them, one Mangaldhan also went to PS. At PS, Lakhidhan was asked to be witness of the seizure of muzzle loading gun. Accordingly, he put his thumb impression on the seizure memo. He has exhibited the seizure memo and his thumb impression. 22.16. PW-16 Dr. Aminul Islam has deposed that on 28.12.2020, he was working as a Medical Officer at Srimanta Shankar Dev Hospital and Research Institute, Dibrugarh. On that day, one patient namely Rabindra Chakma male aged about 50 years was brought by attendant for his medical treatment. Alleged history of patient was that he sustained gunshot injury on 27.12.2020 at about 6:30PM presented with inability to walk and move his feet with loss of sensation below the knee. On physical examination, Doctor has found two puncture wound over backside of left arm, one puncture wound on left buttock and another at lumber three spinal level in the midline. Doctor has conducted medical treatment of the patient through treating Dr. Ananta Salkal Orthopathic Surgeon and Dr. Ramesh Saharia General Surgeon. The patient was operated for taking out the pellets which was inside his body. During CT scan of abdomen, It was found that there were pellets inside the abdomen measuring about 14mmX16mm via right lateral abdominal near kidney. There was another pellet near lumber three and lumber four vertebra measuring 35X34mm near the spinal canal. There was injury over the nervous system of lower body. During CT scan of abdomen, It was found that there were pellets inside the abdomen measuring about 14mmX16mm via right lateral abdominal near kidney. There was another pellet near lumber three and lumber four vertebra measuring 35X34mm near the spinal canal. There was injury over the nervous system of lower body. There was fluid storage at the injured area. On final diagnosis, it was found that the patient was injured by gunshot in the back, left buttock and left arm. After the treatment, Doctor has issued medical certificate. Doctor has exhibited the injury report, CT Scan report, discharge form of Rabindra Chakma. 23. From a perusal of the deposition of PW-3 i.e. Rabindra Chakma, it would come to the forefront that he had implicated the appellant, herein, in categorical terms. The examination-in-chief of the deposition made by the PW-3, would go to reveal that on 27.12.2020, when he was returning from the agricultural field, he was shot at by the appellant, herein, with a gun and the pellets had hit him on his back, waist and shoulder and he had fallen down. The PW-3 had further deposed that he had seen the appellant, herein, running away towards the agricultural field holding a gun in his hand. The deposition of PW-3 has further revealed that on hearing his call, his wife came near him and he told her that the appellant, herein, had fired him with a gun. During the cross-examination of PW-3 by the appellant, the PW-3 had reiterated that he had seen the appellant at the place of occurrence with a gun in his hand and the PW-3 was fired on his back and after, he was so fired, he had seen the appellant. The said deposition of PW-3 was corroborated by the deposition of PW-11 viz. Smti. Shanti Bala Chakma, the wife of PW-3, who had deposed that on hearing the sound of a gun shot and her husband calling her; she had come out of her residence and she had seen her husband in an injured condition and on being asked, who had assaulted him, her husband had told that the appellant, herein, had fired upon him. The PW-1 viz. Dirghao Moni Chakma who is the brother of the victim i.e. PW-3, in his deposition, had deposed that the victim had told the I.O. that the appellant, herein, had fired on him. The PW-1 viz. Dirghao Moni Chakma who is the brother of the victim i.e. PW-3, in his deposition, had deposed that the victim had told the I.O. that the appellant, herein, had fired on him. The informant Shri Siladita Chakma(PW-2), in his cross-examination, had deposed that although he had not seen who had fired upon the victim but the victim had seen that the appellant, herein, had fired him with a gun. Further, PW-7, a co-villager, whose residence was situated near the house of the victim, in his deposition, had deposed that on hearing the sound of a gun shot, he had come out from his residence and he had heard the shouting “ Bhakta ee goli marise ” i.e. the appellant, herein, had shot. Smt. Sadana Devi Chakma, the wife of the appellant, herein, had deposed as PW-9, and in her examination-in-chief, she had denied any knowledge about the incident and accordingly, she was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. During the cross-examination, PW-9 had stated that she had heard that her husband/appellant had fired upon the victim(PW-3) with a Single Barrel Muzzle Loading(SBML) gun. PW-9 had also deposed that she had told the police that her husband i.e. the accused/appellant was having illicit relationship with Shanti Devi Chakma and that her husband had disclosed to her that he is willing to marry Shanti Devi Chakma. 24. Accordingly, the deposition of the victim(PW-3) was corroborated by the depositions of the other prosecution witnesses and others who either had reached the place of occurrence, on hearing the sound of the gun shot, and/or had acquired knowledge of the appellant, herein, shooting the victim, from the victim. Accordingly, the offence committed by the appellant, herein, of shooting the victim(PW-3), has been established during the trial beyond unreasonable doubt. 25. The evidence coming on record would go to clearly establish that the appellant, herein, had the knowledge that the act committed by him, would have the effect of causing death to the victim. Accordingly, the ingredients of the provisions of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, stood established against the appellant, herein, and his conviction thereunder, by the learned trial Court, would not call for an interference. 26. The evidence of PW-16, Dr. Accordingly, the ingredients of the provisions of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, stood established against the appellant, herein, and his conviction thereunder, by the learned trial Court, would not call for an interference. 26. The evidence of PW-16, Dr. Aminul Islam, who had examined the victim(PW-3) had, in his deposition stated that the victim had sustained gun-shot injuries and presented inability to walk and move his feet, with loss of sensation below the knee. On physical examination, the Doctor has found two puncture wounds over backside of left arm, one puncture wound on left buttock and another at lumber three spinal level in the midline. The victim was operated by taking out the pellets which was inside the body. During CT scan of the abdomen, it was found that there were pellets inside the abdomen measuring about 14mm x 16 mm via right lateral abdominal near kidney. There was another pellet near lumber three and lumber four vertebra measuring 35x34mm near the spinal canal. Further, injury was also detected over the nervous system of lower body and there was fluid storage at the injured area. The injury report of the victim(PW-3) revealed the following injuries: “ Final Diagnosis:- Gunshot wound on the back, left buttock & (L) arm Paraplegia below L3 level with Neurogenic bladder. Procedures:- Bullets wound from L3 4 interface by L3 Lumbar Spinal canal structures damaged & Left arms on 29/12/20 Laboratory Result:- Bullet lodged near left kidney was left situ by general Surgeon as it was asymptomatic.” 27. On a conjoint reading of the deposition of PW-16 along with the injury report; it is clear beyond reasonable doubt that the victim(PW-3) on account of being shot upon by the appellant, herein, had sustained grievous injuries. The injuries sustained by the victim(PW-3) had the effect of endangering his life and the same also had caused the sufferer to be, during the space of 20 days, in severe bodily pain, or, unable to follow his ordinary pursuits. The injuries sustained by the victim(PW-3) is covered by the 8th circumstance, as provided under the definition of grievous hurt under Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code. 28. The contention of Ms. Darang, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, is to the effect that on account of the injuries sustained by the victim(PW- 3), he was bed-ridden and paralysed. The injuries sustained by the victim(PW-3) is covered by the 8th circumstance, as provided under the definition of grievous hurt under Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code. 28. The contention of Ms. Darang, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, is to the effect that on account of the injuries sustained by the victim(PW- 3), he was bed-ridden and paralysed. It was further highlighted by the learned counsel that the victim(PW-3) on account of the injuries sustained by him, was not in a position to walk. Accordingly, the charge levelled against the appellant, herein, under Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code, in our considered view, has been established and hence, the conviction of the appellant, herein, by the learned trial Court under the provisions of Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code, would not mandate any interference. 29. Having drawn the above conclusion; the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that a doubt arises with regard to the weapon of offence in view of the inconsistencies highlighted on account of a wrong recording of the date of recovery of the weapon of offence in the recovery memo, would now be required to be examined. 30. In the recovery memo, the following was so recorded: “ In presence of the under mentioned witnesses accused Bhakta Chakma(Name of the accused) in custody as per his disclosure statement has led the Police voluntarily and pointed out the place @ Neoton village, Miao (to be mention) from where articles. where he concealed the weapon of offence i.e Kaja Bonduk (Local made gun) @ Bamboo groove near Anil Chakma home @ Neoton village on 26/12/2020/after committing the crime.” 31. The said recovery was made on the basis of a disclosure statement made by the appellant, herein, before the police. On a close perusal of the disclosure statement, it would be clear that it was stated therein that the weapon of offence was concealed by the appellant, herein, in a bamboo groove near the house of Shri Anil Chandra Chakma at Neoton village on 26.12.2020, after committing the crime. On a close perusal of the disclosure statement, it would be clear that it was stated therein that the weapon of offence was concealed by the appellant, herein, in a bamboo groove near the house of Shri Anil Chandra Chakma at Neoton village on 26.12.2020, after committing the crime. The clarification made in the statement after the date “26.12.2020” with the words “after committing the crime”, which can be only after 27.12.2020; clarifies that the date “26.12.2020”, was recorded on account of a typographical error and the weapon of offence having been concealed after commission of the offence, the same can be construed to have been so done only on 27.12.2020. The discrepancy, if any, in the said disclosure statement, is further clarified by the deposition of Smti. Niyi Angu, the initial I.O., who had deposed as PW- 12. The PW-12, in her deposition, had deposed that the appellant had disclosed about the hiding of the weapon of offence which is locally known as “Khanja Banduk”. Accordingly, the disclosure statement as provided under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, was prepared and on being led by the appellant, herein, the weapon of offence was recovered from a bamboo groove of Neoton village near the house of said Anil Chandra Chakma. The PW-12 had further deposed that she had prepared the seizure memo of the weapon of offence in front of the appellant. During the cross-examination of PW-12 by the appellant; the PW-12 had deposed that she had examined all the witnesses and the victim and the victim had stated before her that the appellant, herein, had fired. However, PW-12 had stated that after seizure of the gun, she had not sealed the same and had not taken the finger prints. 32. A perusal of the FSL report of the weapon of offence, would go to reveal that the same was a country made Single Barrel Muzzle Loading(SBML) gun and its firing mechanism was found well and capable of firing. The opinion of the FSL expert was to the effect that the weapon of offence was in a working condition and could endanger human life. The opinion of the FSL expert was to the effect that the weapon of offence was in a working condition and could endanger human life. The deposition of PW-12 as well as the FSL report lays at rest, any doubt, with regard to the weapon of offence and the appellant, herein, during the trial having not confronted the I.O. and/or the seizure witnesses, with inconsistencies, if any existing in the recovery memo of the weapon of offence; the minor discrepancy as existing in the recording of the date of recovery of the weapon of offence in the recovery memo, would not be of any significance in the matter. Accordingly, the contention as raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, in this connection, would not mandate any acceptance from this Court. 33. Having drawn the above conclusions, the conviction of the appellant, herein, under the provisions of Section 25(1B)(a)/27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959, is being examined. 34. The deposition of victim(PW-3); the disclosure statement; recovery memo; as well as the evidences of PW-6, PW-8 and PW-12; would go to reveal that the appellant, herein, was in possession of a Single Barrel Muzzle Loading(SBML) gun and the said gun was not demonstrated by the appellant, to have been so possessed under a license issued for the same by the competent authority. The appellant, herein, having possessed a firearm along with ammunition without a license, a violation of the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Arms Act, 1959, has been established in the matter against the appellant, herein. Further, the deposition of Shri Hichi Chakma(PW-5) goes to establish that the appellant, herein, was involved in the manufacture and sale of firearms and the PW-5 had purchased one such firearm from the appellant, herein, which, he had deposited with the police after the incident involved in the matter, had occasioned. The said aspect of the matter would go to reveal that the appellant, herein, had violated the provisions of Section 5(1) of the Arms Act, 1959. The said aspect of the matter would go to reveal that the appellant, herein, had violated the provisions of Section 5(1) of the Arms Act, 1959. The FSL report of the firearm, brought on record, having demonstrated that the weapon of offence being a Single Barrel Muzzle Loading(SBML) gun with its firing mechanism found well and being in working condition and it being capable of endangering human life; the charge levelled against the appellant, herein, under the provisions of Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959, was established and further, the charge under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959, for violation of the provisions of Section 5, thereof, also stood established. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant, herein, and the sentence imposed upon him by the learned trial Court for the charge of the offence of manufacture and possession of Single Barrel Muzzle Loading(SBML) gun under the provisions of Section 25(1B)(a)/27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959, would not call for any interference. 35. Having drawn the above conclusions, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant, herein, was not given assistance of a competent legal-aid-counsel who had 10 years or more experience in criminal practice and accordingly, his defence being prejudiced, the impugned judgment, dated 01.04.2022, would not be sustainable; is now required to be considered. 36. In this connection, Mr. Dhar, learned counsel for the appellant, has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok (supra). While the proposition as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision, is undisputable; the contention of the learned Addl. P.P., Arunachal Pradesh, is also required to be noticed. 37. Ms. Jini, learned Addl. P.P., Arunachal Pradesh, has submitted that in a remote place like Khonsa, whether there was a counsel available with the requisite qualification as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision held in the case of Ashok (supra), has not been highlighted by the learned counsel for the appellant. Further, it has been submitted that the learned counsel for the appellant has also not brought on record any material to demonstrate that the legal-aid-counsel who was appointed in the matter as the counsel for the appellant, herein, by the learned trial Court, did not have a practice. 38. Further, it has been submitted that the learned counsel for the appellant has also not brought on record any material to demonstrate that the legal-aid-counsel who was appointed in the matter as the counsel for the appellant, herein, by the learned trial Court, did not have a practice. 38. It is to be noticed that the legal-aid-counsel who was appointed for the appellant, herein, was conducting the matter since the date of framing of the charge against the appellant, if not from before and also, during the trial. It has not been brought on record that the appellant had during the framing of charge, and/or, during the trial, raised any objection with regard to the competence of the legal-aid-counsel. Further, in the grounds urged in the present appeal also; no ground with regard to the competence of the legal-aid-counsel, was so raised. Further, this Court cannot also be oblivious of the fact that in a place like Khonsa, there may not be any practicing counsel having the experience in the criminal side as projected by the learned counsel for the appellant. Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances existing in the matter; we are of the considered view that the said contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, would not mandate an acceptance. 39. Having drawn the above conclusions; we would examine the contention of Mr. Dhar, learned counsel for the appellant that the sentencing of the appellant, herein, by the learned trial Court, would require a re-consideration given the fact that he had no motive, or, previous enmity with the victim(PW-3) as well as the other circumstances relevant for the purpose. 40. Mr. Dhar, learned counsel for the appellant, in support of his contentions, has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurmukh Singh (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision, had drawn the following conclusions: “ 23. These are some factors which are required to be taken into consideration before awarding appropriate sentence to the accused. These factors are only illustrative in character and not exhaustive. Each case has to be seen from its special perspective. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision, had drawn the following conclusions: “ 23. These are some factors which are required to be taken into consideration before awarding appropriate sentence to the accused. These factors are only illustrative in character and not exhaustive. Each case has to be seen from its special perspective. The relevant factors are as under: (a) Motive or previous enmity; (b) Whether the incident had taken place on the spur of the moment; (c) The intention/knowledge of the accused while inflicting the blow or injury; (d) Whether the death ensued instantaneously or the victim died after several days; (e) The gravity, dimension and nature of injury; (f) The age and general health condition of the accused; (g) Whether the injury was caused without premeditation in a sudden fight; (h) The nature and size of weapon used for inflicting the injury and the force with which the blow was inflicted; (i) The criminal background and adverse history of the accused; (j) Whether the injury inflicted was not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death but the death was because of shock; (k) Number of other criminal cases pending against the accused; (l) Incident occurred within the family members or close relations: (m) The conduct and behaviour of the accused after the incident. Whether the accused had taken the injured/the deceased to the hospital immediately to ensure that he/she gets proper medical treatment? These are some of the factors which can be taken into consideration while granting an appropriate sentence to the accused. 24. The list of circumstances enumerated above is only illustrative and not exhaustive. In our considered view, proper and appropriate sentence to the accused is the bounded obligation and duty of the court. The endeavour of the court must be to ensure that the accused receives appropriate sentence, in other words, sentence should be according to the gravity of the offence. These are some of the relevant factors which are required to be kept in view while convicting and sentencing the accused.” 41. As already concluded hereinabove; the evidences coming on record had clearly demonstrated that the appellant, herein, had the knowledge that the use of the firearm for shooting the victim(PW-3), may cause his death. The victim(PW-3), in his deposition, had, without any ambiguity, identified the appellant, herein, as the aggressor. As already concluded hereinabove; the evidences coming on record had clearly demonstrated that the appellant, herein, had the knowledge that the use of the firearm for shooting the victim(PW-3), may cause his death. The victim(PW-3), in his deposition, had, without any ambiguity, identified the appellant, herein, as the aggressor. The deposition of the victim(PW-3), in his examination-in-chief, had remained un-rebutted in cross and nothing could be elicited from the victim(PW-3) by the appellant, herein, during his cross-examination, rather, during his cross-examination; the victim(PW-3) had deposed that he had seen the accused at the place of occurrence with a gun on his hand and that he was fired from behind. The victim(PW-3) had further deposed that after he was fired upon, he had seen the appellant, herein, at the place of occurrence. The deposition of victim(PW-3) was corroborated by the deposition of his wife viz. Smt. Shanti Bala Chakma(PW-11), who had, in her deposition, stated that on hearing the gun shot, she had come out of her residence and found her husband in an injured condition and on being asked; the PW-3(victim) had told her that the appellant, herein, had fired upon him. The evidence of PW-1 also revealed that the appellant, herein, had disclosed before him that it was the appellant who had fired upon him. The evidence of PW-9 i.e. Smt. Sadhana Devi Chakma who is the wife of the appellant, herein, brings on record a motive in the form that her husband was having an illicit relationship with Smti. Shanti Devi Chakma(PW-10) and had also disclosed that he was willing to marry said Shanti Devi Chakma. The evidence of Smti. Shanti Devi Chakma(PW-10) disclosed that the victim is her brother- in-law and he had visited her residence on the day of the incident and the appellant, herein, had fired upon the victim(PW-3) while he had gone back to his residence. She had also deposed that on hearing the hue-and-cry raised by the victim(PW-3), she had gone to the place of occurrence and she was told by the victim(PW-3) that the appellant, herein, had fired upon him. She had also deposed that on hearing the hue-and-cry raised by the victim(PW-3), she had gone to the place of occurrence and she was told by the victim(PW-3) that the appellant, herein, had fired upon him. The said factors when considered with the recovery of the weapon of offence which was so made basing on a disclosure made in this connection by the appellant, herein, and who had led the police to the place, wherein, the weapon of offence was concealed; would go to reveal that the appellant, herein, had committed the offence with the knowledge that the same had the effect of causing death to the victim(PW-3) and the concealment of the weapon of offence would establish that the appellant, herein, knew that he had committed an offence in the matter. The appellant, herein, in his examination, under the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, had not explained the circumstances existing against him in the matter and had only resorted to a denial to the questions put to him in this connection. Further, the injuries caused to the victim(PW-3) as discussed hereinabove, was, admittedly, grievous in nature and the same was established by the materials brought on record. 42. The learned trial Court basing on the materials coming on record, had convicted the appellant, herein, to undergo imprisonment for life and for payment of a fine of Rs. 50,000/- for the offence of attempt to murder and causing grievous hurt with dangerous weapon under Section 307/326 of the Indian Penal Code. 43. Applying the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Gurmukh Singh (supra) to the facts of the present case; the following factors are being noticed. 44. Although the deposition of PW-9(Sadana Devi Chakma) i.e. wife of the appellant, herein, discloses a motive for the offence committed by the appellant; the same is not established, and/or, corroborated by the depositions of the other prosecution witnesses. 44. Although the deposition of PW-9(Sadana Devi Chakma) i.e. wife of the appellant, herein, discloses a motive for the offence committed by the appellant; the same is not established, and/or, corroborated by the depositions of the other prosecution witnesses. Further, considering the nature and size of the weapon of offence used by the appellant, herein, for inflicting the injuries sustained by the victim(PW-3) on account of the firing upon him by the appellant using the firearm involved, although, the appellant had the knowledge that the same can cause death of the victim(PW-3); we find that the area where the injuries had so occasioned in the body of the victim(PW-3), the appellant, herein, did not have the intention to cause death of the victim(PW-3). Further, the materials brought on record do not indicate that the appellant, herein, other than being involved in the illegal manufacture, sale and possession of the firearms, had any other criminal background. The said factors noticed herein above, leads to a conclusion that the sentencing of the appellant by the learned trial Court for the charge under Section 307/326 of the Indian Penal Code, would mandate a reconsideration. 45. Accordingly, considering the background of the facts involved in the matter, we are of the considered view that the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court upon the appellant, herein, under Section 307/326 of the Indian Penal Code, is required to be modified from that of life imprisonment to that of imprisonment for 10(ten) years. 46. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant by the learned trial Court under Section 307/326 of the Indian Penal Code; the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court vide order, dated 07.04.2022, for the offence under Section 307/326 of the Indian Penal Code, is hereby interfered with and the appellant, herein, is now sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10(ten) years under Section 307/326 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the fine as imposed upon the appellant, herein, under the provisions of Section 307/326 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned trial Court, is not being interfered with. 47. The conviction and sentencing of the appellant, herein, under the provisions of Section 25(1B)(a)/27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959, is also not interfered with. However, it is provided that the sentences so imposed upon the appellant, herein, would run concurrently. 48. 47. The conviction and sentencing of the appellant, herein, under the provisions of Section 25(1B)(a)/27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959, is also not interfered with. However, it is provided that the sentences so imposed upon the appellant, herein, would run concurrently. 48. The appellant, herein, having been arrested on 28.12.2020, and being behind the bars; the period of detention already undergone by the appellant, be set-off with the quantum of sentence now required to be undergone by him in terms of the provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 49. With the above directions, the instant criminal appeal is partly allowed and accordingly, stands disposed of. 50. The connected LCRs be remitted forthwith.