JUDGMENT :

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

1. This is an application under Section 378(3), Cr.P.C. seeking grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 04.12.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat acquitting the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 307, 506 read with Section 34 IPC.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. Succinctly, the facts of the prosecution case are that on 09.09.2017 at about 12.00 midnight, an intimation was received in police station from CHC, Ganaur regarding admission of injured Anil after having received gun shot injury and his having been referred to BPS, Khanpur Kalan. On this information, ASI Rajbir along with HC Naresh Kumar and Constable Parmod reached BPS Khanpur Kalan and moved an application to the doctor seeking his opinion with regard to the fitness of injured for making statement and after obtaining the permission of the doctor, statement of injured was recorded to the effect that he was a resident of village Agwanpur and was a tailor by profession. On 08.09.2017 at about 9.00 p.m. he along with his wife Suman and mother Dayawati was sitting in the verandah of his house. In the meantime, a white car came in front of their house and three young boys alighted therefrom. They all were having weapons in their hands. They all fired shots upon him with an intention to kill him. One bullet hit him on the leg due to which he became unconscious. All the assailants fled from the spot along with their weapons. Thereafter he was taken to Government Hospital, Ganaur for treatment.

3. On this complaint, the prosecution machinery swung into motion. A case under Sections 307, 34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act was registered. Accused Rahul was arrested and his disclosure statement was recorded. Accused Ankit and Shakti were arrested after issuance of production warrants. Their disclosure statements were also recorded. On completion of investigation, challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed in Court.

4. On finding a prima facie case against the accused for commission of offences punishable under Sections 307, 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, they were charged vide order dated 16.10.2018.

5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 28 witnesses and after hearing the rival submissions and perusing the prosecution evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that there was no direct evidence against any of the accused as the complainant and other eye witnesses turned hostile regarding the identity of the accused as culprits. Thus, the present leave to appeal is filed.

CONTENTIONS

6. Learned State counsel has argued that the facts and circumstances of the case clearly indicates that all the three respondents had fired upon PW-3-Anil with an intention to kill him and one shot injured his right foot. PW-16-Dr. Chiranjeev duly proved on the basis of X-Ray report that PW-3-Anil had suffered a fracture of right foot medial cuneiform bone. He also produced an X-Ray film as Ex-PW-16/B. All the three respondents were arrested and respondent No. 3-Rahul suffered a disclosure statement which is duly produced on record as Ex-PW-19/A and the weapon of offence has already been recovered from respondent No. 3-Rahul. Similarly, the arrest of other respondents is proved by other official witnesses alongwith their disclosure statements. The learned State counsel further contends that the bullet injury suffered by PW-3-Anil on 08.09.2017 was clearly proved from the testimony of PW-23-Mohd.Bilal who found entry and exit wound on the right foot of PW-3-Anil and had also found blackening of margin, thus proving the case of the prosecution beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt. The learned State counsel vigorously argued that even though the injured PW-3-Anil and other eye witnesses namely Suman (PW-1), Dayawati (PW-2) and Mukesh (PW-20) turned hostile but the circumstances of the case proves the complicity of all the accused in firing upon PW-3-Anil with an intention to kill him whic