SUNITA GUPTA, J.

1. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 26.09.2011 and order on sentence 27.09.2011 by which the appellant was convicted under Sections 307 of Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further six (6) months simple imprisonment. The appellant was also given the benefit of the provisions of Section 428 of Cr. P.C.

2. Facts germane to the Prosecution case succinctly stated are as follows:-

On 17.09.2004 at about 12:30 AM, Investigating Officer SI Rajnikant received DD no. 3A Ex. PW 18/A to the effect that someone in a black colour Santro Car no. 1121 has fired upon some person near Acharya Niketan Apartment. SI Rajnikant alongwith Constable Raj Kumar started for the spot but in the meanwhile, they came to know that the injured has been shifted to Kailash Hospital, Noida. They reached Kailash Hospital where injured Subhash was found admitted in the ICU and was declared unfit for statement. SI Rajnikant also came to know that the injured Subhash has been fired upon his chest. Thereafter, he alongwith Constable Raj Kumar reached near Upkar Apartment where the guard of Upkar Apartment namely Raghav Tiwari met them and told them that he had heard the noise of firing from a distance of about 100-150 metres and he also produced the I-Card of Delhi Police, ATM Card and Reliance Nokia phone of the accused/appellant which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/C. Thereafter, they returned back to Police Station Mayur Vihar. After some time, constable Satender of Police Station Kalyan Puri reached PS Mayur Vihar and produced the accused alongwith one .38 revolver, 4 live cartridges and one used cartridge. Constable Satender also produced MLC of the accused Ex.PW3/A. Sunder Singh (PW2) came to the Police Station and identified the appellant and informed that Santro Car No. 1121 was being driven by the accused himself. During the course of investigation, the Santro Car used in the commission of the offence was seized. After completing the investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the accused for offence u/s. 307 IPC.

3. Charge for offence under Section 307 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined in all 18 witnesses. All the incriminating evidence was put to the accused while recording his statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. wherein he denied the case of prosecution and alleged his false implication in this case. He took the plea that one criminal complaint case bearing No. 699 of 2004 filed by him titled Tarun Vikram vs. Subhash & Sunder u/s. 392/397/353/372/186/307/323/506 IPC is pending before Sh. Devender Garg Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate KKD Courts, Delhi. In his defence, he led one defence witness besides examining himself as DW1.

5. After analysing the evidence adduced by the prosecution, vide impugned judgment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused for offence under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him as mentioned hereinbefore.

6. The finding of the learned Trial Court has been assailed by the learned counsel for the appellant. Broadly, the submissions made by him may be categorized as under:-

(i) Prosecution has failed to prove the crime spot itself which is otherwise disputed. No crime team was called at the spot. No photographs of the alleged crime scene were taken. No blood, blood stained earth or sample earth control were lifted from the spot. Apart from failure to discharge his duty to prove the crime scene, further prejudice has been caused to the appellant as the appellant is claiming the place of incident as near the nala side towards main road from the side of Subhash Market, Trilokpuri where the incident of robbery was committed with him whereas the so called injured PW1 and his companion PW2 initially claimed the place of inciden