JUDGMENT

J.P.DAS, J. - The appellant stood convicted under Sections 304-I/294/506 of the Indian Penal Code along with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in default to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence under Section 304, Part-I of the I.P.C.; R.I. for one months without any fine for the offence under Section 294 of the I.P.C.; R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for one month for the offence under Section 506 of the I.P.C. and R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for one month on each count for the offences under Sections 25 (1-B) and 27 (1) of the Arms Act with a direction for concurrent running of all substantive sentences by the leaned Sessions Judge in S.T. Case No.80 of 2011.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the informant and the accused are neighbours and on 16.06.2010 at about 9 A.M. the accused passed some filthy comments on the grand daughter of the informant to which the daughter of the informant objected. Thereafter, the accused abused the daughter of the informant using obscene words and when she protested, the accused gave out threats to eliminate her by gun and bombs. The informant and his daughter being scared of such threat immediately proceeded to the Police Station for help. The wife of the informant was alone at home and at about 1.30 P.M. the accused had a quarrel with the wife of the informant and fired at her from a gun which resulted in death of the victim at the spot. The villagers present at the spot, tried to give water to victim but she was dead. The informant getting the news from one Grama Rakhi, came back to the village and found the dead body of his wife lying on his house verandah. A report was lodged at the Police Station and the investigation was taken up. In course of investigation, inquest and post-mortem were conducted over the dead body, witnesses were examined, one pellet along with some blood stained earth was seized from the spot of occurrence and were sent to S.F.S.L. for chemical examination. After completion of all examinations and obtainment of reports, the charge sheet was submitted against the accused under Sections 302/294/506 of the Indian Penal Code along with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. Charges were framed as per allegations made in the charge sheet to which the accused pleaded not guilty and faced the trial. In course of trial, prosecution has examined twelve witnesses including the eye witnesses to the occurrence, the doctor who conducted post-mortem examination besides the Police Officers who took part in the investigation. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused in defence.

3. Analysing the evidence placed on record, the learned Sessions Judge held the accused guilty and convicted him under Section 304, Part-I of the I.P.C. so also for the other offences as charged and passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentences as aforesaid.

4. In course of hearing of the appeal, which was registered on a petition of the convict-appellant from jail, learned Counsel engaged on behalf of the High Court Legal Services committee mainly contended that the medical evidence placed on behalf of the prosecution was not sufficient to establish that the victim died out of gun shot injury and further the alleged weapon of offence was also not recovered or seized in course of investigation apart from the fact that the pellet which was allegedly seized from the spot of occurrence, did not contain any stain of blood. It was also submitted that the conviction under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act is not sustainable since there was no sanction order obtained from the District Magistrate on behalf of the prosecution prior to submission of charge sheet.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has mainly relied on the evidence of two independent eye witnesses namely, P.Ws. 4 and 7 who have categori