Pradeep Kumar, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the state.
(2.) THE instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 28.03.2000 and order of sentence dated 31.03.2000 respectively passed in S.T. No. 230 of 1992 by Prabodh Ranjan Das, 3, Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar, by which judgment he found the appellant guilty under Section 326 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for seven years and also a fine of Rs. 1000/ -, in default of making payment of fine, he shall suffer two month simple imprisonment, he also found guilty under Section 448 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year and further found guilty under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for five years and also a fine of Rs. 1000/ -, in default of making payment of fine, he shall suffer for two months, all the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant that only the injured P.W.9, Geeta Devi and the informant P.W.6 Ramu Mahto supported the prosecution case. The firing was done by this accused causing injury on the leg of the victim Geeta Devi, but in the instant case neither the material exhibit - bullet recovered from leg was produced nor the I.O. was examined and admittedly Saya and Sari which was ablaze in the firearm neither seized nor produced in the Court. In that view of the matter, the prosecution case is doubtful and the learned trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellant.
(3.) ON the other hand learned Counsel for the state has opposed the prayer and submitted that the prosecution evidences have fully proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts and hence the conviction of the appellant does not require any interference by this court.;