Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.7 of 1999 **** Against the judgment, dated 09.12.1998, PASSED BY s.m. Haque, Additional Sessions Judge, I, Madhepura, in Sessions Case No. 175 of 1996 **** 1. Nago Mandal, son of Biso Mandal 2. Ashok Mandal, son of Jeetendra Mandal, residents of village Hathimdha, P.S. Behariganj, district Madhepura .. Appellants Versus The State of Bihar .. Respondent **** For the Appellants .. Mr. Arun Kr. Tripathi, Adv. as Amicus Curiae For the Respondent .. Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, APP **** P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD Gopal Prasad, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the State. 2. The appellants have been convicted for offence under Sections 307/34 of the Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. However, no separate sentence has been awarded for offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. 3. The prosecution case, as alleged by the informant, Vishnudeo Singh, that on 14.09.1995 at about 12.00 a.m. in the night he was coming after visiting cinema and taking his meal and when he reached at the main gate of the house, two persons came from the side of malgodam 2 and fired one after the other and fled away. One shot hit on his left arm and second hit on his back. The informant identified one as Nago Mandal and with regard to second person the informant stated that he can identify him by face. 4. On the fardbeyan, the first information report lodged. During investigation the second suspect was caught hold and put on Test Identification Parade and the witnesses identified them. After investigation the charge sheet submitted and cognizance taken. 5. During the trial 17 witnesses examined, out of them P.Ws. 4, 9 and 16 were tender, P.Ws. 4 and 10 were turned hostile, P.Ws. 7 and 8 are the witnesses of the seizure list, P.Ws. 2, 3, 5 and 11 supported the prosecution case, P.W. 12 is the informant, P.W. 16 is the investigating officer, P.W. 17 is the Magistrate and P.Ws. 13 and 14 are the doctors who examined the injured. The trial Court held that P.Ws. 2, 3, 5 and 11 supported the prosecution case about firing. The doctor, P.Ws. 13 and 14 found the corresponding injury and pellet recovered. The co-accused, Ashok Manda, identified in Test Identification Parade, conducted by P.W. 17 and held the appellant guilty for an offence under Section 307/34 of the Penal Code. 6. The learned amicus curiae submits that appellants are 20 to 25 years old at the time of judgment in 1998 and appellant no. 1, Nago Mangal remained in jail from 15.099.1995 to 24.07.2000 and appellant no. 2, Ashok Mandal, remained in jail from 27.09.1995 to 24.07.2000 and they were ordered to be released on bail by the order of the Hon’ble High Court. 7. From the perusal of the record, it is apparent that the P.Ws. 2, 3, 5 and 11 as well as the informant has supported the prosecution case. 3 P.W. 5 has identified the appellants firing, the informant, P.W. 5, identified Ashok Mandal in Test Identification Parade conducted by P.W. 17 and also identified in dock as the person who fired along with Nago Mandal and the other witnesses also supported the prosecution case that they reached at the place of occurrence and, hence, taking into consideration the entire evidence I am satisfied that the prosecution has been able to prove that the appellants fired at the informant with intention to kill causing fire arm injury on his elbow and back and the doctors have also proved the injury and took out the cartridges from the person of the informant causing injuries and, hence, I find and hold that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubts and the order of conviction is sustained. 8. However, taking into consideration the fact that the occurrence is of the year 1996 and the two appellants have remained in jail from 15.09.1995 and 27.09.1995 to 24.07.2000 till the bail granted to them by the Hon’ble High Court and, hence, remained in jail for about five years and the ends of justice shall meet by sentencing the appellants for the period already undergone. 9. With the above modification in sentence, this appeal is dismissed. ( Gopal Prasad, J. ) The Patna High Court, The 15th day of October, 2011, N.A.F.R., S.A.