IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Testimony of a witness in a criminal trial cannot be discarded merely because of minor contradictions or omission.
(2) Evidentiary value of a medical witness is very crucial to corroborate case of prosecution and it is not merely a check upon testimony of eyewitnesses.

JUDGMENT :

KRISHNA MURARI, J.

1. The appellants in these two connected appeals have challenged the common judgment and order dated 16.01.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna (hereinafter referred to as ‘High Court’) in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 69 of 2007 filed by the present appellants modifying the judgment passed by the Trial Court convicting the appellants under Section 307 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and confirming their conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The Trial Court after convicting the appellants under Section 307 read with Section 27 of the Arms Act, sentenced them to undergo five years Rigorous Imprisonment under Section 307 and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and three years Rigorous Imprisonment under Section 27 of the Arms Act and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. On an appeal filed by them, the High Court converted their conviction under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC to Section 324 IPC and awarded two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and three months simple imprisonment in case of default. The sentence awarded to the appellant by the Trial Court of three years Rigorous Imprisonment under Section 27 of the Arms Act was confirmed. Aggrieved by the same, the two appellants are before us.

2. The prosecution case in brief is as under:

On the basis of fardbeyan of PW-6 (injured informant), Kumar Nandan Singh made at the clinic of Dr. Himkar, the police registered an FIR being Case No. 312 of 1999 dated 10.10.1999, Police Station - Lakhi Sarai, under Sections 323, 307 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The injured informant, PW-6, stated in his fardbeyan that on the fateful day at about 05:30 P.M. while he was repairing the ‘Kaccha Mud Wall’ which had fallen down due to rain, with the help of hired labourers, his neighbour, namely, accused–appellant, Manoj Singh came and objected to repairing of the wall. The informant told him that the land belongs to him, after which Manoj Singh went to his house and came back again along with co-accused Anuj Singh having guns in their hands. The other two accused, Praveen Singh and Arvind Singh, also came having spears in their hands. It was further stated that Manoj Singh and Anuj Singh both with a malafide intention to kill him, fired shots. The bullet shot fired from the gun of Manoj Singh struck in the left leg and the bullet fired from the gun of Anuj Singh hit the hand. It was further stated that Praveen Singh and Arvind Singh assaulted him with the spear and lathi in their hands. On hearing gun shots, his family members and other villagers came there. Seeing the people coming, all the four accused ran away to their houses. It was further stated that he was brought in an injured condition to the clinic of Dr. Himkar where on arrival of police, the statement was recorded.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid statement made by the injured informant PW-6, the FIR was registered on the same day, however, it was not forwarded to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate on the same day but was sent after two days i.e. on 12.10.1999. After completing the investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet against the two appellants, Anuj Singh and Manoj Singh, under Section 307 IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. The other two co-accused, Praveen Singh and Arvind Singh, were charged under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against the accused persons on 01.09.2000 and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 16.01.2001.

4. The Trial Court after analyzing the statement made by the prosecution witness and the evidence of the defence, vide judgment and order dated 22.12.2006 convicted the accused appellants, Anuj Singh and Manoj Singh, and the other two co-accused, Praveen Singh and Arvind Singh, under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. The two appellants herein were also held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms