IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 63 OF 2007 SHRI. SHANKAR PEDNEKAR PRESENTLY IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY OF CENTRAL JAIL AGUADA ... Petitioner Versus S T A T E THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ... Respondent Mr. Shivan Desai and Mr. Siddharth Kalshawkar, Advocates for the petitioners. Ms. W. Coutinho, Public Prosecutor for the State. Coram:- D. B. BHOSALE, J. Date:- 31st January, 2008 P.C. This revision is directed against the Judgment and Order of conviction dated 26.8.2006, passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court vide its Judgment and Order dated 5.10.2007. The appellate Court, however, while confirming the order of conviction, partly allowed the appeal and convicted the accused under section 324 I.P.C. instead of 307 I.P.C., as was done by the trial Court, and maintained the sentence under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 2. Mr. Shivan Desai, learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the ocular version, without being recovery panchanama proved, is not sufficient to convict the accused. He ubmitted that the panch witness PW.11 was a stock witness and the recovery was from the hut, which was open to all. The prosecution, according to Mr. Desai, ought to have obtained finger prints of the accused to establish the recovery of the gun at his instance. Lack of finger prints being taken by the prosecution vitiates the recovery panchanama. He then submitted that PW.1, the victim was not knowing the accused and, therefore, the prosecution ought to have conducted a test identification parade and in the absence of the evidence in the form of test identification parade, it cannot be stated that the offence stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. He further submitted that looking to the discrepancies in the evidence of PW.1, PW.6, the victim and the eye witness respectively, their evidence deserves to be rejected ought right and the conviction based on such evidence cannot be sustained. He then submitted that looking to the nature of the injury, which is described by the Doctor as simple injury, it cannot be stated that it was caused with the gun shot, allegedly used by the accused. 3. I have perused the impugned Judgments and the other material on record, including the evidence of PW.1 and PW.6. Merely because the panch witness-PW.11 had acted in 4 to 5 cases as a panch and the Investigating Officer knew him earlier, cannot be a ground to discard his evidence out right. His evidence, coupled with the evidence of I.O. and the panchanama, has been rightly accepted by the Courts below to hold that the recovery stands proved. The gun has been identified by PW.1 and PW.6 Similarly, merely because finger prints were not obtained, that by itself is not sufficient to hold that the recovery stands vitiated. Further, it appears that PW.6 knew the accused before the offence and he had identified him as the person who assaulted the victim-PW.1. PW.1 too in his evidence has stated that he knew the accused. The I.O. also has stated that the test identification parade was not necessary since the accused and the victim were in the hospital together and knew each other. PW.13-Dr. Borkar, in his deposition, has clearly stated that the entry wound was surrounded by gun powder tatoo and there was bleeding from the wound. When his opinion was sought, in the cross examination, he has stated that the injury could have been caused by an object other than a fire arm, but the surrounding gun powder marks do not say so. 4. Looking to the evidence of PW.1 and PW.6, and the other supporting evidence on record, in my opinion, it is sufficient to hold the accused guilty of the alleged offences and the Courts below have rightly convicted him. 5. Looking to the evidence of PW.15, the sanction cannot be stated to be vitiated, as tried to be contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The Courts below have considered the evidence on record in its proper perspective and I do not see any manifest error of law warranting interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. The prayer for extending the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, considering the manner in which the offence was committed and the nature of the evidence on record, also stands rejected. 6. In the circumstances, the revision application is dismissed. The petitioner to surrender within three weeks from today. D. B. BHOSALE, J. ssm.