Crl.A. 136/2007 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Ms. P. Das, learned counsel for the appellants. The State is represented b y Mr. BB Gogoi, learned Addl. PP. 2. This appeal is presented to challenge the judgment and order dated 8.6.0 7 in Sessions Case No.39 (DMFT)/05 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge (FTC), Darrang, whereby the two appellants have been convicted under Section 307/34 IP C and have been sentenced to 7 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- and, in default, to suffer R.I. for another 3 months. The accused appellant No.2 Ashar uddin @ Bideshi has been further convicted under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act a nd sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- a nd, in default, to R.I. for another 1 month. 3. The prosecution case, as revealed from the FIR filed on 27.1.01 by PW-1 Sorhab Ali, is that on the previous evening i.e. 26.1.01 at about 6-30 P.M. whil e the witness was proceeding on a motor cycle along with his younger brother Maz ed Ali (PW-2), the two accused accosted the them near the sluice gate. The witn ess recognized the assailants from the head-light of the motor cycle. When the w itness questioned the accused on their intention, the accused Bideshi fired with his pistol at PW-1 and he sustained bullet injuries on his face. The injured wi tness raised alarm and ran for some distance when others gathered who took the i njured to the Mangaldoi Civil Hospital. Then the injured was referred for specia lized treatment and he was admitted to the Gauhati Medical College Hospital as a n indoor patient where he was treated by PW-11. 4. On receipt of the written ejahar from the informant from the hospital, a case was registered and in course of the investigation police arrested the accu sed. One country made pistol with 3 live ammunitions kept hidden by the accused was also recovered. 5. Thereafter charge sheet against the 2 appellants and few others were fil ed and following a trial where 15 prosecution witnesses were produced and none f or the defence, conviction of the 2 appellants under Section 307/34 IPC and conv iction of the appellant No. 2 under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act was ordered by the impugned judgment. 6. Amongst the prosecution witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 were the target of the a ccused on the evening of 26.1.01. The categorical testimony of PW-1 is that whil e he was proceeding along with his younger brother Mazed Ali on his motor cycle to Mangaldoi, the accused Bideshi and Atowar with pistol and dagger waylaid them and then accused Bideshi shot PW-1 with his pistol which caused penetrating inj uries on his right cheek. The injured PW-1 ran for his live and fell down at a d istance of 50 mtrs. and thereafter he was taken for medical treatment by PW-2 a nd co-villagers. The witness after his admission as an indoor patient in the Med ical College Hospital at Guwahati sent the written ejahar where both the accuse d have been named as the assailant. 7. PW-2, Mazed Ali, who was riding pillion on the motorcycle driven by his brother Sohrab Ali, corroborates the evidence of the injured witness on all mate rial particulars. PW-2 also identifies the 2 accused from the motor cycle head-l ight. He along with other co-villagers took the injured PW-1 for treatment. 8. The evidence of PW-3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 are also material as these witne sses reached the place of occurrence soon after hearing gun shot sound in the vi cinity of their respective location. They saw Sohrab Ali (PW-1) with bullet inj ury on his right cheek and barring PW-9, they also heard Sohrab Ali shouting tha t the accused Bideshi caused injury by firing from his pistol. PW-9 Idrish Ali however stated that by that time he reached the place of occurrence, the injured witness was unable to speak and on being questioned by PW-9, the victim wrote the name of his assailant on a piece of paper. 9. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 remained unshaken through cross-examinatio n and they corroborate each other on all material particulars. The other witness es such as PW-3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9, although are not eyewitnesses, reached the pl ace of occurrence and could learn from the injured witnesses that he was shot at by the accused Bideshi after being accosted by the 2 accused appellants. 10. The bullet injury suffered by the PW-1 is corroborated by the medical ev idence given by PW-11 who provided treatment to the victim after he was admitted as an indoor patient in the Gauhati Medical College Hospital. The three injurie s found on the victim were recorded by the Doctor as follows:- (i) One wound about 3 cm diameter entry would penetrating in nature; (ii) Cut wound on the right pinna of size 1 cm x ‰ cm x ‰ cm depth; (i) Multiple pin point abrasions over the right pinna. 11. The evidence of PW-14, Umesh Barua, the armour expert also confirms that the injured witness suffered bullet splinter injuries. 12. On close scrutiny of the evidence on record, I find that the conviction of the 2 appellants under Section 307/34 IPC does not justify any interfere. 13. As regards the conviction under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act of the app ellant No.2 Bideshi who shot at PW-1 is also found corroborated on all material particulars by the evidence ofPW-1, PW-2 as well as the evidence of the Doctor ( PW-11) and the armour expert (PW-14). Therefore, I see no reason to interfere wi th the conviction of the appellant No. 2 under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that leniency of the sente nce be considered as the appellants are daily wage earners and their families ar e suffering because of incarceration of the appellants in jail. But from the cir cumstances of the case it is apparent that the accused had accosted the victims in a premeditated manner and the injured witness was shot at with a pistol. It i s only sheer providence that PW-1 did not succumb to the bullet injury although he had to receive prolonged treatment for the bullet wound suffered on his right cheek. PW-1 stated that the bullet is still lodged in his cheek. 15. Considering the nature of the weapon used and the armed assault in a pre meditated manner, reduction of sentence is found unjustified. Also because of th e injury suffered by the victim which could have been fatal, leniency of sentenc e is not found warranted in the present case. 16. Accordingly, I see no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismiss ed. Send down the L.C.R.