Cr.Appeal No. 338/2002 wherein, Chandra Deo Sah, Anandi Sah and Taj Narayan Singh are the appellants while Cr.Appeal No. 358/2002 wherein Subuk Lal Singh is the appellant, commonly originate against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 22.05.2002 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge (Additional Court No.4), Khagaria in S.Tr.No.848/82 whereby and whereunder appellant, Subuk Lal Singh has been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and directed to undergo RI for five years, under Section 148 IPC and directed to undergo RI for two years, under Section 27 of the Arms Act and directed to undergo RI for one year with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently. While appellants’ conviction, Chandra Deo Sah, Anandi Sah and Taj Narayan Singh, each has been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 148 IPC and has been directed to undergo RI for two years. Because of the fact that under Section 27 of the Arms Act minimum prescribed therefor happens to be three years, on account thereof, show-cause was issued against the appellant Subuk Lal Singh on that very score which has been filed.

2. Informant, Deep Narain Singh (PW-1) gave his Fard-e-beyan on 18.05.1982 stating therein that servant of Subuk Lal Singh chased his goat for which he was scolded by him and on account thereof, Subuk Lal Singh, Chandra Deo Sah, Anandi Singh and Tej Narayan Singh along with others armed variously came at his place and attempted to assault whereupon he ran away therefrom towards the house of Manoranjan Singh being chased by the accused persons who intervened into the matter whereupon Subuk Lal Singh fired causing injury over his eye-brow. Subsequently thereof, Manoranjan was shifted to hospital where he was examined.

3. After registration of the Chautham PS case 75/82 investigation proceeded and after completing the same charge-sheet was submitted whereupon cognizance was taken leading to trial ultimately meeting with instant result, the subject matter of the instant appeals.

4. The defence case, as is evident from mode of cross-examination as well as from statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C is of complete denial of occurrence as well as of false implication. However, neither any DW nor any document has been exhibited.

5. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution had examined altogether seven witnesses out of whom PW-1, Deep Narain Singh, PW-2, Deonarayan Singh, PW-3 Manoranjan Singh, PW-4, Harinarain Singh, PW-5, Sagar Singh, PW-6, Shivshankar Pd. Singh and PW-7, Dr. Ramanand Kumar. Side by side, exhibited Ext-1, Injury report. Neither Investigating Officer has been examined nor the Fard-e-beyan along with other relevant documents have been exhibited.

6. From the nature of the evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution, it is evident that PW-2, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 have not supported the prosecution case. PW-1 Deep Narain Singh, informant had uttered with regard to occurrence, however, he had not named Subuk Lal Singh to have fired at PW-3, Manoranjan Singh.

7. Now, the prosecution case rests upon the evidence of sole witness PW-3, the injured. Before going to testify his testimony, the evidence of PW-7, Dr. Ramanand Kumar who had examined PW-3 on 18.05.1982 at about 7:30 A.M. is to be looked into. As per evidence inconsonance with Ext-1, injury report, the following injury has been found by the doctor during course of examination:-

(a) lacerated wound 5 cm x 4 cm x 2 cm on the right side of scalp. Just above the right eye brow, margin everted, skin round the wound was scorched and black.

(b) The injury was grievous in nature and caused by fire arm- may be gun.

(c) age of the injury within six hours.

8. So from the evidence of PW-7, it is apparent that PW-3 had sustained fire arm injury. From cross-examination, it is apparent that defence could not be able to discredit his testimony on that very score.

9. Now, coming to the evidence of PW-3, it is evident that he had stat