IMPORTANT POINT
The testimony of an injured witness is highly credible, and minor inconsistencies do not undermine the prosecution's case if the core facts remain intact.

JUDGMENT :

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.

1. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence under Sections 394, 395 and 397 of Indian Penal Code is under challenge in the instant appeals.

2. Prosecution case in brief, as set out in the FIR, lodged by one Satish Kumar Sinha, brother of Dr. Indrajit Kumar Sinha, is that on 08.02.2008 in the evening at 6:30 pm after the hospital duty when his brother returned to his residence at Canery Road and was getting down from his car, three unknown miscreants attacked him and one of them on the point of pistol demanded cash and valuables. One of his servant, namely Ranjit, who was present there, started raising alarm. Dr. Indrajit Kumar Sinha caught hold of one of the miscreants and started grappling with him. One of them fired by revolver resulting in gunshot injury over his shoulder near the chest. He caught hold one of them, and he was fired for the second time and he was injured near his waist. After the incidence, all five to six miscreants fled away. The injured Dr. Indrajit Kumar Sinha was taken to the hospital by the informant from where he was referred to higher center for treatment.

3. On the written report, Hazaribagh Sadar PS Case No. 140 of 2008 was registered under Sections 395, 397 of the Indian Penal Code against six unknown persons. Police, during investigation, initially submitted charge-sheet No.327 of 2008 on 30.05.2008 against Ashok Prasad Mehta, Shankar Mehta @ Shankar Mahto and Sudhir Kr. Mehta and supplementary charge-sheet No. 153 of 2009 was submitted on 29.04.2009 against Mithlesh Mehta and Gajendra @ Gajak Mehta. Accused Ashok Pd. Mahto, Shankar Mehta @ Shankar Mahto and Sudhir Kr. Mehta were charged on 26.11.2008, whereas Mithlesh Kr. Mehta was charged on 04.09.2009 for the offence under Sections 394, 395 and 397 of Indian Penal Code and they have been jointly tried.

4. One of the accused was below 18 years of age and his trial was split up from these accused persons and the matter was referred to Juvenile Justice Board.

5. Altogether nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution, and the relevant documents including Test Identification Parade Chart and injury report were proved on behalf of the prosecution. Learned trial Court on these evidences, convicted the appellants against which the present appeals have been preferred.

6. Judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been assailed on the ground that there has been inordinate delay of three months in holding the Test Identification Parade of the accused persons and during this period, they were being produced before the court below and the victim had opportunity to identify the accused persons before the Test Identification Parade.

7. It is further argued that there is material contradictions between the deposition of the witnesses regarding two gunshot injuries having been received by the victim Dr. Indrajit Kumar Sinha, whereas PW-8 Dr. N.A.M. Ali has testified to only one bullet injury.

8. As per the prosecution case, Ranjit @ Raju Thakur was the servant of Dr. Indrajit Kumar Sinha and was very much present at the place of occurrence at the alleged time of incidence. He was arrayed as charge-sheet witness No. 2, but he has been withheld and not examined by the prosecution. Therefore, adverse inference under Section 114 of the Evidence Act is liable to be drawn for withholding this material witness. The statements of the accused which was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., suffers from serious infirmity and the conviction is liable to be set aside on this count alone.

9. There has not been any recovery of any fire arms which was allegedly used in the incidence.

10. It is argued that regarding the manner of incidence, there is contradiction in the oral evidence of the injured and in his identification in TIP which has been adduced into evidence and marked as Exhibit 6. Injured Dr. Indrajit Kumar Sinha (P.W. 1) has deposed in para 2 that he had identified the dacoit in TIP, who were present in Court. W