JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the parties.

2. The appellant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction dated 08.02.2006 and Order of Sentence dated 13.02.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Deoghar in Sessions Case No.37 of 2005 whereby and where under the appellant has been convicted for having committed offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.5,000/- with default clause for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years..

3. The case of the prosecution as unfolded in the fardbeyan of the informant in brief is that the informant is the wife of the appellant-accused. About twelve days before 29.12.2004 when her fardbeyan was recorded by police on a Friday at 8.00 pm, when the informant was about to go to sleep in her house, the appellant-accused being the husband of the informant, came to house being armed with a pistol and told that he will kill the informant. The appellant-accused thereafter, fired at the informant from the pistol causing injury on her cheek just below her right eye. After sustaining the gun-shot injury, the informant fell down and became unconscious. She regained sense after one day. She was unable to see with both her eyes. The appellant-accused took her by hiding from the village and got her treated. After 3-4 days, she was unable to see anything with her right eye but she was able to see with her left eye. Three days prior to lodging of the F.I.R., the appellant-accused brought the informant to their house. The father of the informant came to the house of the informant one day before the lodging of the F.I.R. The informant disclosed the occurrence to her father and on being accompanied by her father she went to the police station and got her statement recorded.

4. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, police registered Sarwan P.S. Case No.179 of 2004 and took up investigation of the case. After completion of the investigation, police submitted police report against the appellant-accused.

5. Upon commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charges for the offences punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act were framed against the appellant-accused person.

6. Upon the appellant-accused person pleading not guilty to the charges and claiming to be tried, he was put to trial.

7. In support of its case, the prosecution altogether examined six witnesses besides proving the documents.

8. Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W.4- Subaida Khatoon is the informant of the case. She has stated that about four months prior to her being examined in the court on 08.04.2005, the occurrence took place on a Friday at 8.00 pm. After taking supper, the P.W.4 was getting ready to sleep. The appellant-accused came and shot at the right eye of the informant. The informant fell down and became senseless. The appellant-accused took the informant to another village. But the father of the P.W.4 came 9-10 days after the occurrence and the P.W.4 disclosed him about the occurrence. The father of the P.W.4 took her to police station and police recorded her statement which was read over to her and on finding the contents of the same to be true, the P.W.4 signed the same. Police sent the P.W.4 to Sarwan hospital where she was treated. Her husband used to demand money from her to be brought from her father for which the P.W.4 was not agreeing and because of the said reasons, the appellant-accused fired at her. In her cross-examination, she has stated that her paternal house is in the same village as the house of her husband. She has further stated that she does not know after firing, to which village her husband took her. She