S.P.Garg, J.

1. The appellant-Noor Salam impugns the judgment and order on sentence passed in Sessions Case No.1/2010 arising out of FIR No.326/2005 registered at PS Timarpur by which he was convicted for committing offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for eight years with fine Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for six months.

2. The police machinery came into motion on 01.07.2005, when Daily Diary (DD) No.78B was recorded at PS Timarpur at about 11.10 P.M. on getting information that a person had been shot at Nand Lal jhuggies, Mukherjee Nagar Police Picket and taken to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital. The DD (Ex.PW9/A) was assigned to SI Rajneesh who with Const.Bijender reached the spot. No eye witness was present there. He proceeded to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital and obtained MLC of the injured Samir Ul Hasssan and recorded his statement. He disclosed to the Investigating Officer that he was taken to the spot by Noor Salam, Noor Alam and Hafaz. At about 10.45 P.M. suddenly Noor Salam caught hold of him from behind and when he tried to rescue himself, Hafaz assaulted him with fists and made him to fall on the ground. Noor Salam exhorted Noor Alam to shoot and kill him. On that, Noor Alam took out a gun and fired at his face. When he got up and tried to run away, Noor Alam fired another shot which hit him on his back. When he raised alarm, people gathered and the assailants fled the spot.

3. The Investigating Officer went to the spot. The crime team was present. Scene of incident was got photographed. First Information Report was lodged under Section 307/34 IPC. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded statements of witnesses conversant with the facts. Efforts were made to recover the weapon of offence but in vain. The exhibits were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Rohini. After collecting the results, a charge-sheet was submitted against the assailants. The accused Hafaz was declared Proclaimed Offender. Noor Alam and Noor Salam were duly charged and brought to trial.

4. The prosecution examined sixteen witnesses. Their 313 Cr.P.C. statements were recorded. Noor Salam examined himself in defence. On appreciation of the evidence and documents on record and considering the rival contentions of the parties, the appellant- Noor Salam, and Noor Alam were convicted and sentenced by the impugned judgment.

5. At the outset, it may be mentioned that co-accused Noor Alam had filed Crl.A.1232/2010. However, during the course of arguments, he opted not to challenge the findings of the Trial Court on conviction and it was affirmed.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective. The prosecution was unable to establish and prove appellant's motive to inflict injuries on the victim. The weapon of offence was not recovered. The complainant and the appellant were known to each other prior to the incident. Had there been hostile relations between the two, the injured must not have volunteered to accompany them to an isolated spot. There is inconsistency if the victim was fired from close/distance range. The victim was not unconscious when he was medically examined. He did not disclose the name of the assailants to the doctor. He was fit for statement which demonstrates that he did not suffer any fatal injury. The duration for which he remained in the hospital has not come on record. The appellant was falsely implicated in this case. Only role attributed to him was that he exhorted the co-accused to fire at the victim.

7. Learned APP while supporting the judgment urged that it did not call for interference. The deposition of PW-1, Mohd.Samir-ul-Hasan/ injured has remained unchallenged and un-rebutted. The appellant did not opt to cross-examine him on any fact. His statement is in consonance with medical evidence. Pursuant to their pre-plan, the assailants to