The court upheld the conviction for attempted murder and illegal possession of a firearm, confirming the sufficiency of evidence and the appropriateness of the sentence.

JUDGMENT :

H.P. SANDESH, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional SPP appearing for the respondent State.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that accused No.8 Sri Achari Seetharama without having any valid licence manufactured one S.B.B.L. gun and sold the same to accused No.7. Accused No.7 along with accused Nos.1 to 6 had a conspiracy to murder C.W.1 Jeevan on 26.07.2006 at about 8.30 p.m., in Chembebellur Village and accused Nos.1 to 8 had common object to murder C.W.1 Jeevan with conspiracy. When C.W.1 was returning to his house after completing his work, accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 restrained C.W.1 Jeevan. It is also the case of the prosecution that on the instigation of accused Nos.3 and 4, accused No.1 fired with gun on C.W.1 Jeevan, as a result, he sustained grievous injuries on his left chest as well as hand. Based on the complaint Ex.P.1, which was recorded in the presence of P.W.9 by P.W.25, the case was registered, the matter was investigated and invoked the offences under Sections 341, 307 and 120B of IPC and Sections 27(1), 25 and 3 of the Indian Arms Act against the accused persons. The accused persons were arrested and faced trial and the prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.27 and also the documents at Exs.P.1 to 43 and also got marked M.O.1 to M.O.20. A portion of the statement of P.W.2 was marked as Ex.D.1 and the accused not led any defence evidence. The Trial Court having considered the material on record, accepted the case of the prosecution in respect of accused No.1 and in respect of other accused persons not accepted the same and acquitted the other accused persons. Accused No.1 was sentenced for rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years with fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 27(1) of the India Arms Act.

3. Being aggrieved by the said order of conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed before this Court.

4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant before this Court is that even though the prosecution failed to establish that accused No.8 Achari Seetharama has manufactured S.B.B.L. Gun and sold the same to accused No.7, the Trial Court acquitted all other accused persons in coming to the conclusion that there was no any conspiracy and an intention to take away the life of the injured, but erroneously comes to the conclusion that accused No.1 only shot the victim and comes to the conclusion that the material available on record proves the guilt of accused No.1 that he had used the gun and shot the victim and as a result, he had sustained injuries and he was in hospital for a period of 23 days and the evidence corroborates that accused No.1 had only committed the offence and committed an error in accepting the circumstantial evidence of P.W.3 and the evidence of P.W.2 is also inconsistent with regard to the very incident is concerned. Both P.W.1 and P.W.2 speaks about the presence of accused Nos.3 and 4, but the Trial Court not accepted the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. The Trial Court ought to have extended the benefit in favour of accused No.1 also. The learned counsel contend that the material contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 has not been properly appreciated by the Trial Court and committed an error in relying upon the evidence of P.W.8 auto driver, P.W.9 doctor who conducted the examination of the injured and referred the injured to the higher centre and also the evidence of P.W.19 Ballistic expert and the evidence of P.W.25 not corroborates with the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the Trial Court fails to take note of the discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses. The learned counsel contend that even P.W.19 was not able to give opinion that the very same gun was used to fire against the victim and it was rusted. When such materia