RAJENDRA CHANDRA SINGH SAMANT, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against judgment dated 25-04-2015 passed in Sessions Trial No.12/2014 by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Surguja, Ambikapur, C.G. convicting the appellant under Section 392, 307(3 times) of the IPC & Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act and sentencing him with R.I. for 10 years, R.I. for 10-10 years, R.I. for 4 & 4 years along with fine Rs.500/-, Rs.500/- - Rs.500/- (total Rs.1500/-) and Rs.500/- & Rs.500/- (total Rs.1000/-) respectively with default stipulations and direction that all the jail sentences shall run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is this, that on 09-10-2013 at about 08:15 P.M. complainant Megha Gupta (PW-4) was walking on the street to her home when the appellant along with deceased Gourav Seth came on a motorcycle and snatched the gold chain worn by Megha Gupta (PW-4) and then he made his escape. Megha Gupta (PW-4) and others raised alarm, hearing which Vishal Gupta (PW-2) and Ratan Prasad Gupta (PW-3) tried to chase and stop the motorcycle of the appellant, who fell down because of traffic. Then the appellant while running away from the spot he took out a firearm and shot at Vishal @ Mikku Gupta (PW-2) causing injury on his right forearm and when Ratan Prasad Gupta (PW-3) tried to catch hold of him, the fire was also opened on him by the appellant who got shot on his leg, then, the appellant also fired shot on Dhananjay Bariyar (PW-8). Members of public caught hold of the appellant on the spot. FIR (Ex.-P/4) was lodged on the spot on the information given by Vishal Gupta (PW-2) and the appellant was arrested on the spot. Memorandum statement Ex.-P/1 was recorded and at the instance of the appellant a country-made firearm and cartridges recovered and seized from spot vide Ex.-P/2. The statement of witnesses were recorded. The injured victims were sent for medical examination and treatment. The seized firearm was sent for examination by armorer. After completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed.

3. The appellant was charged with offence under Sections 120 read with 392 of the IPC and Sections 25 of Arms Act, to which the appellant denied and prayed for trial.

4. On completion of the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., in which he denied all the incriminating evidence against him, pleaded innocence and false implication. No witness was examined in defence.

5. On completion of the trial, the impugned judgment has been passed in which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as aforementioned.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that there is question of the identity of the appellant, as no test identification parade was conducted in the investigation. After seeing the appellant on the spot, the appellant has been directly identified in the dock of the Court. Vishal Gupta (PW-2) is one of the victims who is not reliable witness. Another witness of the spot Ratan Prasad Gupta (PW-3) has not clearly supported the prosecution case, because of which he was declared hostile. It has been admitted by Vishal Gupta (PW-2) in his cross-examination that he had seen the appellant in the police station and he has also seen his photo published in the newspaper and thereafter he has identified him before the Court, which makes the identification of the appellant doubtful. It is also submitted that according to the investigation, the gold chain was seized from the possession of Megha Gupta (PW-4) which shows that no question of loot had occurred. Further, it is submitted that according to the statement made by Doctor Roselin R. Ekka (PW-5) in the case of bullet injury the size of entry wound and exit wound was the same, which is not possible in a bullet injury, where the exit wound is always larger than the entry wound. Hence, for these reasons, conviction of the appellant is bad in law. In alternative, it is prayed that if this Court is not convinced to