Strong and credible eyewitness testimony, corroborated by scientific evidence, can form the basis for a conviction, even in the absence of a clear motive.

JUDGMENT :

K. SURENDER, J.

1. The appellants were convicted for the offence under Section 307 r/w 34 of IPC, A1 was also found guilty for the offence under Section 25(1)(a) of Arms Act and A2 for offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that PW-1 questioned A3 (died) about his illegal activities of grabbing of plots allocated to the members in the locality. On 13.02.2007 in the evening while PW-2 (victim and injured) was on his scooter going to the under construction plot, he saw PW-1 and asked him to come to his under construction house. PW-2 reached the under construction house at 7.15 p.m. PW-1 also arrived at the scene. PW-1 saw that A2 fired at him from the back. PW-2 threw his cell phone at A2. Both A3 (died) and A4(acquitted) were standing near the stair case of the under construction house. PW-1 started hurling stones on the appellants. The appellant and others fled the scene. According to PW-2, A2 fired with pistol which was marked as MO1 and A1 was standing with dragger MO2. Having received bullet injury, PW-2 became unconscious and PW-1 joined him in the hospital. Both the appellants were strangers to PWs. 1 and 2. Test Identification Parade was conducted by the Magistrate at Chenchalguda Jail.

3. On the date of the incident i.e. 13.02.2007, PW-1 went to the police station around 8.30 p.m. and his statement was recorded by the Sub-Inspector of Police in the police station. On the basis of statement, crime was registered for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and Sections 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act.

4. Learned Sessions Judge, having considered the evidence of the witnesses PWs. 1, 2 and others found that the appellants/A1 and A2 committed the offence and accordingly convicted as stated above.

5. Learned counsel on record was continuously absent, for which reason, Retired District Judge Sri V. Ravi Kumar was appointed to argue the case.

6. Learned counsel Sri V. Ravi Kumar would submit that the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 cannot be believed. PW-2 is a rowdy sheeter and PW-1 has criminal antecedents. PWs. 3, 4 and 5 are also interested witnesses. The complaint does not give any details or descriptive particulars of the appellants. Even during the course of Test Identification Parade, the procedure prescribed was not followed by the learned Magistrate. Further, the police did not take sanction to prosecute the accused under the Arms Act.

7. Learned counsel further argued that it was admittedly under construction house and there is no proof of any light available at the scene. Since the appellants were strangers, the identification cannot be believed. In fact, PW-2 stated that un-identified person had fired from behind. There are several contradictory statements regarding the incident in so far as PWs. 1 and 2 are concerned. In the said circumstances, the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt.

8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor supported the findings of the learned Sessions Judge. It was further argued that there was no necessity for PW-2 to speak false against the appellants if they were not the assailants. PW-1 had stated in his complaint that he can identify the persons who have shot at him. Learned Sessions Judge had given adequate reasons for conviction.

9. The defence projected was that PW-2 who received bullet injury was a rowdy sheeter. He had several enemies in the area. The appellants, who are strangers to PW-2 would not have caused injuries. The prosecution has failed to prove any motive on the part of the appellants to kill PW-2.

10. Motive will have no significance in a case where eye witnesses are available to speak about the incident. If the eye-witnesses account is convincing, the Court need not go to the motive aspect. In the present case, PW-2 is the injured, who has seen A2 firing at him. He threw his cell phone at A2. PW-1 also came there and hurled stones at A2. The presence of A1, A3 and A4 was also spoken to by PW-1 at the time of recording his state