2. The prosecution case, in brief, initiated on the statement of Laxmi Prasad Sahu, injured is that he was working as a Helper in Barauni Oil Refinery, on the day of occurrence he was lying on a cot in his room after taking his meal at Mungeriganj. In the meantime, a jeep came, stopped in front of his house. One of the occupants came from the jeep and called him. He opened the door, came out from his room and identified the person calling him as Gujo Paswan. Two of the persons in jeep were also identified in electric light as Ram Chandra Paswan and Upendra Paswan. Fourth one was identified as son of Prasadi Paswan and fifth one was known but his name could not be remembered. Ram Chandra Paswan thereafter Guja Paswan shot firing from their pistol upon the informant Laxmi Prasad Sahu which hit his right arm pit and right elbow. There is specification also that shot of firing by Ram Chandra Paswan injured the informant on right elbow and Guja Paswan on the right arm pit. Informant fell down on the ground. People nearby came and rescued him. Miscreants left the place of occurrence. The informant was taken to Sadar hospital by the gathered people for treatment.

3. After conclusion of trial, all the appellants have been convicted for alleged offences committed by them. There are different aspects and areas which have been taken for assailing the conviction by the appellants. Similarly nature and manner of the offence has been raised awarding insufficient punishment.

4. Now the point for consideration in appeal is-

(i) whether contradictions in prosecution witnesses and other illegalities have satisfactorily and legally been replied or not?

(ii) As for criminal revision, the nature of offence under prevailing circumstance was justifying awarded sentence sufficient.

5. In all eight witnesses were examined in the case. They can be divided in different categories, as P.W.1 Rameshwar Sahu and P.W.6 Laxmi Prasad Sahu are the witnesses to state the whole prosecution story. P.W.2 Nathu Sahu and P.W.3 Amulya Kumar Bose are mainly on the point of seizure of blood stained ganji and empty cartridge recovered from the place of occurrence though they have stated about taking place of the incident also but in cross-examination only. P.W.4 and P.W.5 though appeared to state the prosecution case but turned hostile. P.W.7 is a retired dresser who has identified the signature of the doctor who had prepared injury report after examining the injured along with its exhibition and P.W.8 is a formal witness to get exhibited documents.

6. The defence has also produced two witnesses and they are D.W.1 Prem Kumar and D.W.2 Gopal Sah.

7. All the prosecution witnesses save and except P.Ws 7 and 8 are examined to corroborate the prosecution case. Of them P.Ws 1 to 6 are on the point that firing was shot by miscreants hitting the informant Laxmi Prasad Sahu and they are more specific on the point of incident that all the accused persons along with two more came on jeep which halted in front of the informant’s house whereupon the informant was shot by Ram Chandra and Guja Paswan and shot firing hit the informant.

8. As non-examination of the doctor and the I.O. has also been raised to doubt the prosecution case but that is sufficiently replied that there was no point existing to be taken from the I.O. which could prejudice the prosecution case.

9. As about the non-examination of the doctor that has also been satisfactorily replied. All the witnesses in the case save and exc