IMPORTANT POINT
When there is no physical injury 10 anyone, the best evidence to sustain the conviction under section 307, Indian Penal Code, could be that of the recovery of the spent bullets when the prosecution case is that the accused, possessed of a revolver, when intercepted by the witnesses, while trying to escape, fired at them twice.

JUDGMENT

Santosh Duggal, J.-The present appeal filed by convict Victor Paul @ Raju is directed against his conviction for offences under section 307, IPC as well as section 27 and section 25 of the Arms Act. By consolidated judgment dated 5th February, 1987, recorded by Shri V.B. Bansal, then Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi, the appellant was sentenced to R. T. for three years for offence under section 307, IPC and to R.I. for two years on account of conviction under section 27 of the Arms Act and another R.I. for one year under section 25 of the Arms Act by separate order recorded on 7th February, 1987. The sentences were, however, directed to run concurrently.

2. The present criminal appeal was filed from jail while the convict was undergoing the sentence and the plea is that of failure on the part of the trial court to take note of the vital and glaring discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, rendering the case as not worthy of conviction. Some details of the alleged discrepancies in the statements of the material witnesses are also set out in the grounds of appeal. Reference is also made to the opinion of the CFSL expert who failed to depose about certain material facts such as the evidence whether the weapon had been used. It is pleaded that the oral evidence cannot be relied upon in the absence of the opinion of the expert whether this weapon was fit to be operated upon. Although the criminal appeal was admitted but the prayer for bail was declined.

3. Mrs. Usha Kumar, an advocate of this Court was appointed amicus curiae for the appellant. The appeal was today taken up for hearing when Mrs. Kumar appeared as amicus curiae for the appellant and Miss R. Wasu for the State. Both the learned counsel very ably assisted the Court in going through the trial court judgment and the records.

4. The gravamen of the charge against the appelant was that on the night of 9th October, 1985 some time between 8.30 and 9 p.m., he come to the shop of P.W. 1 Amar Nath who is having a betel-cum-cigarette shop near Odean Cinmea, Connaught Place, New Delhi and firstly picked up a betel leaf and thereafter one packet of cigarettes of 'Classic' brand and moved away without making any payment. The prosecution story goes on to allege that the owner of the shop in his anxiety to recover the money, followed the said person whose name was subsequently discovered as Victor Paul (namely the present appellant) and he was able to stop him somewhere near the petrol pump but the appellant instead of acceding to the demand for payment of money, picked up a row. In the meantime a constable, named Hans Raj who was on patrol duty in the area; also came on the scene and he along with P.W. 1 Amar Nath chased the appellant and when the constable made effort to make the appellant either to return the cigarette packet or make the payment, the latter took out a countrymade revolver from the dub of his pocket and while trying to escape, fired a shot at them but both f them escaped having kneeled down but still chased him when P. W. 2 Radhey Shyam had also joined them and allegedly another shot was also fired by the appellant which these persons were able to escape A police party also reached there and Sl Hukam Chand Rana. then posted at P.S Cannaught Place, New Delhi along with others allegedly chased the accused and they were able to apprehend him at Royal Restaurant, Connaught Circus, New Delhi where a revolver was recovered from his possession.

5. In view of the statement given by P.W. 1 Arnar Nath, a case under section 307, IPC was registered vide FIR No. 961 of 1985 on the basis of statement Ex. P. W. 1/ A containing endorsement of SI Hukam Chand Rana, Ex. P.W. 6/A, and a separate case under sections 27/25 of the Arms Act was registered vide FIR No. 962 of 1985 because of the alleged possession and use of the country made revolver.

6. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge on the basis of the oral evidence produced, namely, those of the three eye