By Court: The appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.01.2002 passed by Sri Mishri Lal Choudhary, learned Sessions Judge, Latehar in Sessions Trial No. 304 of 1990, by which judgment the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant Sanjay Mahto guilty under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 27 of the Arms Act, hence sentenced him to undergo R.I. for four years under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for one year under Section 27 of the Arms Act. However the appellant was acquitted under the charges under Sections 148/307/149 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The prosecution case was started on the basis of First Information Report given by informant-injured Rajeshwar Singh, P.W 7 on 09.11.1989 at 6:30 P.M. in the evening stating therein that he has got land at village Thema and since long they have got land dispute with Mathura Prasad Yadav and others. Cases are still pending in Daltonganj. On the same date at about 3:30 in the evening accused Sanjay Mahto with gun in his hand, Binod Mahto with danda, Lalbihari Mahto with danda, Mathura Prasad Yadav with danda, Bandhu Munda with danda all came on his land at village Thema and started cutting the paddy crop. When he asked them not to cut paddy then they became furious and Sanjay fired from his gun in order to cause his death and due to injury he started bleeding. Apart from the aforesaid persons, there were five or six persons. The informant stated that all the aforesaid named accused were armed with gun, lathi and they came with common intention to caused the death. On the basis of fardbeyan police registered a case under Sections 147/148/149/307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and after investigation police submitted charge-sheet under aforesaid sections and since Section 307 was exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate after taking cognizance of the offence committed the case to the Court of Sessions and Sessions Judge held the trial against the aforesaid named appellant Sanjay Mahto who was found guilty as stated above.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that except the informant P.W. 7 and two related witnesses P.W. 1 and P.W. 8 no other witnesses supported the fact that the firing was done by the appellant Sanjay and as such his conviction and sentence is bad in law and liable to be set aside. He has also submitted that prosecution witness themselves admitted that the land belonged to the accused persons and the informant party came there and hence they were aggressor and as such the conviction of the sole appellant can be bad in law.

4. On the other hand learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that even if, it is accepted that the land belong to the accused and the informant-party were aggressor, the appellant had no right to cause injury on the vital part of the body and hence the conviction is justified and it requires no interference by this court.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the state and going through the evidences, I find that the prosecution case has been fully supported by the P.W. 1Bal Kishun Singh, P.W. 7 informant Rajeshwar Singh and P.W. 8 Ganesh Singh who is the independent witness.

P.W. 1 stated that on the date of occurrence at about 3:30 P.M. he had gone to see the land of the informant Rajeshwar Singh at village Thema alongwith Ganesh Singh and found that Sanjay Mahto, Binod Mahto and four or five other persons were cutting the crop. Sanjay Mahto had gun in his hand. He fired from the gun causing injury on the face, neck and chest of the informant Rajeshwar Singh. He fell down and became unconscious then he was taken to hospital by Ganesh Singh. He stated that land of Khata No. 24 & 25 belongs to the informant Rajeshwar Singh. He cultivated the same. In his cross-examination he stated that before they reached, the accused persons has started cutt