1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.2.2005 passed by the Sessions Judge, Baghpat, in S.T. No. 396 of 2004, State Vs. Amit Kaushik, convicting the appellant under section 307 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 15,000/- and in case of default in payment of fine to undergo two years further simple imprisonment.

2. Heard Ms. Vatsala Pandey, learned Amicus Curiae and Sri Ram Raj Pandey on behalf of the appellant and learned AGA for the State. Perused the record.

3. The facts in brief are that on 10.6.2004 at 4.00 P.M. a first information report was lodged by one Manoj Kumar stating therein that at 3.00 P.M. on the same day one boy, in an injured condition came running towards him and informed that his friend Amit, with whom he had come from Shamli, had taken him to Gurana Gate and he had inflicted gunshot injuries on him.

4. Before lodging the of the FIR, the injured Anuj was immediately taken to C.H.C. Baraut, District Baghpat, by the first informant Manoj and his brother, where the injured was medically examined. Following injuries were found by the doctor on his body:

1. Gunshot wound of entry 1.5 x 1 cm. middle of back of chest upper part 20 cm. below base of neck. Blackening and tattooing present in an area of 6 cm x 4 cm. K.U.O.

2. Gunshot wound of exit 3 cm x 2 cm Rt. side front of chest 3 cm below mid clavicle. K.U.O.

3. Gunshot wound of entry 1 cm x 1 cm in inner aspect of Rt. forearm. 3 cm above wrist joint. Blackening present in surrounding 8 cm. K.U.O.

4. Gunshot wound of exit 1 cm x 1.5 cm on back of Rt. wrist joint.

5. Gunshot wound of entry 1.5 cm x 1 cm on mastoid region Rt. side. Blackening around the wound present. K.U.O.

5. All injuries K.U.O. All caused by firearm. Fresh in origin. Referred to P.L. Sharma Hospital, Meerut, for X-Ray, admission and treatment.

6. On the basis of the first information report a case was registered at Case Crime No. 273 of 2004, under section 307 I.P.C. Police Station Baraut, District Baghpat, against the accused-appellant Amit Kaushik and the matter was investigated.

7. The investigating officer interogated the witnesses, prepared the site plan and after conclusion of the investigation, submitted charge sheet against the appellant.

8. The offence being triable by the court of Sessions, it was committed to the Sessions Court, where charge under section 307 I.P.C. was framed against the appellant. As the appellant denied from the charge and prayed for trial, the trial proceeded.

9. The prosecution in order to prove its case, produced four witnesses in all. PW1 is the first informant Manoj Kumar, PW2 is the injured Anuj Kumar, PW3 is Dr. B. K. Bajpayee, who had examined the injured at C.H.C. Baraut, District Baghpat, and PW4 is the Investigating Officer of the case S.I. Mukut Singh.

10. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence the statement of the accused-appellant was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. The appellant denied from all the allegations and alleged his false implication by the injured due to enmity. No defence evidence was produced by the appellant.

11. In order to properly appreciate the case, it appears necessary to have a glance on the statements of the witnesses examined before the trial court.

12. PW1-Manoj Kumar has stated that at about 3.00 P.M. on the day of occurrence, one boy came running towards him. He informed that his friend Amit Kaushik had brought him to this place from Shamli and had fired shots on him. PW1 has further stated that the injured was immediately taken to the Government Hospital by him and his brother Rajesh and a written report in his own handwriting was also lodged by him at the police station. PW1 has identified his handwriting and signature on the first information report and has duly proved it in the court, which was marked as exhibit Ka-1. This witness has been cross-examined at length by the learned defence counsel but nothing has been elicited to ca