The testimony of an injured eyewitness is highly credible and generally accepted unless compelling evidence to discredit it is presented, as upheld in prior Supreme Court rulings.

JUDGEMENT :

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. The instant Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26^th February, 2003 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pakur in Sessions Case No. 180 of 2001 and 32 of 2001, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty for the offences under Sections 307/34 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for the offence under Section 307/34 of the I.P.C., imprisonment for 7 years for the offence under Section 397 of the I.P.C. and imprisonment for 3 years for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

Factual Matrix:-

2. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 15.12.2000, at about 06:00 P.M., the informant Umakant Sah (PW-9) riding on his newly purchased Rajdoot motorcycle of black colour reached near Trikoni river at Village Trikoni, then he saw in the light of his motorcycle, three persons were standing on the road in his front. In the slow speed of motorcycle, the informant saw Arjun Thakur and Harihar Thakur both the appellants and one unknown person in the light of his motorcycle. It is alleged that Harihar Thakur (Appellant No. 1) stopped the motorcycle of the informant abusing in filthy language and saying that he has ruined his medical practice and ordered to Arjun Thakur (appellant no. 2) to shoot fire at the informant Umakant Sah. It is further alleged that Arjun Thakur (appellant no. 2) fired at the informant by a pistol which hit on the back of the informant and came out from the side of stomach, due to which he fell down from his motorcycle, then Harihar Thakur (appellant no. 1) and the unknown person started inflicting knife blows on the temporal region and back of the informant with the intention to kill him. Thereafter, all the three miscreants fled away taking the motorcycle of the informant. It is further alleged that hearing the alarm raised by the informant and sound of firing, the informant's son Mithlesh Kr. Sah, along with his mother and neighbours approached to the place of occurrence. The informant narrated about the occurrence to them. Thereafter, family members of the informant brought him to St. Luke's Mission Hospital at Hiranpur for treatment. It is further alleged that on earlier occasions also Harihar Thakur (appellant no. 1) had threatened the informant on the point of private medical practice.

3. On the basis of Fardbeyan of informant namely Umakant Sah, recorded by S.I. Ved Prakash Mehta O.C. Hiranpur P.S. at St. Luke's Mission Hospital, General Ward on 15.12.2000 at 21:00 hrs., formal F.I.R. was registered as Littipara P.S. Case No. 39 of 2000 dated 16.12.2000 for the offences under Sections 307/34 and 397 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

4. After completion of the investigation of the case, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants, finding no clue of the unknown person involved in this case. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions where S.T. No. 180 of 2001 and 32 of 2001 was registered, where the accused persons denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

5. Trial commenced, after conclusion of the trial, impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence was passed which has been assailed in this appeal.

6. Heard Mr. Rana Surjit Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants and Mr. Saket Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State as well as Mr. R.C.P. Sah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.

Submissions on behalf of appellants: -

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant assailing the impugned judgement and order