- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17243 CRL.A No. 1415 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1415 OF 2012 (C) BETWEEN: MR. EERAPPA S/O LATE NANJUNDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS AGRICULTURALIST R/AT KIGGALU VILLAGE MURNAD POST, MADIKERI TALUK …APPELLANT (BY SRI. M.T. NANAIAH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. PRABHUGOUD B. TUMBIGI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA MADIKERI RURAL POLICE STATION MADIKERI, KODAGU DIST. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 374 (2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.12.12 PASSED BY THE P.O F.T.C. KODAGU, MADIKERI IN S.C. NO.42/2006 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 307 OF IPC AND SEC.3 & 25 OF ARMS ACT. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT, DELIVERED/PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17243 CRL.A No. 1415 of 2012 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) This judgment would decide the appeal filed by the appellant, Sri. Eerappa @ Panni S/o Late. Nanjunda, challenging his conviction under Section 307 of IPC and Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act for attempting to murder his brother P.N.Belliappa. By judgment of conviction dated 12.12.2012 and order of sentence dated 20.12.2012 passed in Session Case No.42/2006 by the Ad-hoc District Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Kodagu, Madikeri, the appellant – accused was sentenced as under: "The accused-Erappa @ Panni is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of Five years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand), in default of payment of fine, shall, have to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence p/u/s. 307 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default of payment of fine, shall have to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17243 CRL.A No. 1415 of 2012 for the offence p/u/s. 3 read with section 25 of Arms Act. The substantive sentence of imprisonment should run concurrently and default sentence should run separately. In the event of payment of fine made by the convict, the sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) is ordered to be paid to the injured PW.1/P.N.Belliappa under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. by way of compensation after appeal period is over." Facts of the case: 2. Crime No.15/2006 was registered at Madikeri Rural Police Station, Madikeri, on the basis of the information statement given by the complainant – injured P.N. Belliappa, resident of the address so stated in the complaint, who was admitted in the hospital and under treatment. The said FIR was registered on 04.02.2006 at 7.15 p.m and after recording the statement of the complainant, the concerned police officials came to the police station and registered the aforesaid crime. It is stated in the complaint that the complainant is an - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17243 CRL.A No. 1415 of 2012 agriculturist by occupation and residing with his family in his village. His father had four sons. Amongst them, complainant brother Kalappa is no more. Another brother, Uthaiah, had left the village. He and his brother Eerappa i.e., the accused by effecting the partition in the family properties are residing separately. 3. When the land properties were divided, threshing floor belonging to their father was also divided into two parts and the front portion was allotted to the share of the complainant and hind portion was allotted to the accused - Eerappa. With regard to the said threshing floor, from the last nine years prior to filing of this complaint, there were objections. It is alleged that, the accused, Eerappa, used to leave his cattle towards the said threshing floor allotted to the complainant's share. Whenever the complainant used to enquire about the same, the accused used to quarrel with him and used to give a threat that, by firing, he would kill the complainant. Every year the same fate used to follow. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17243 CRL.A No. 1415 of 2012 4. As usual during 2006, the complainant had cut the coffee crop and for the purpose of drying the same, he had put the same in threshing floor. At that time, accused did galata. It is alleged that, on 04.02.2006, the complainant, along with his wife Thangamma, went to attend the 'Kodava Mela' in the morning and returned to their house at about 4.30 p.m. At that time, complainant noticed that, the cattle belonging to the accused were in the threshing floor, where coffee crops were put for drying. He and his wife tried to remove the said cattle from the said threshing floor. At that time, as the accused was there itself, the complainant enquired his brother that, his cattle were in his threshing floor. Being raged by the words used by the complainant, accused abused the complainant in filthy language and asked him, who are you to remove the cattle from the threshing floor. By saying so, he went inside the house and brought Single-Barrel Gun and fired against the complainant. The said bullet hit the complainant and he fell down. By seeing the same, his wife Thangamma, started - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17243 CRL.A No. 1415 of 2012 bombarding and came near the complainant. On seeing the same, accused went inside his house. By that time, one Premi and Ganapathi, who were neighbors, came there and gave a first aid treatment to the complainant. Because of firing on the complainant, he sustained injuries on his right eye and both the breast and chest area, so also to his left hand. He had sustained bullet injuries on his person. Thereafter, he was shifted to Madikeri Government Hospital in a jeep belonging to one Ashoka from Murnadu. His wife brought him to the hospital. It is alleged that, the accused having ill-will and animosity with regard to the using of said threshing floor, had attempted to kill the complainant. With these allegations, a statement came to be recorded by the police on receipt of the medical intimation from the hospital and the same was registered in the aforesaid crime. The Investigation Officer, on completion of the investigation, filed a charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17243 CRL.A No. 1415 of 2012 5. To substantiate the guilt of the accused, prosecution in all examined 26 witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P25 with respective signatures thereon and also MO.Nos.1 to 6. 6. On closure of the evidence of the prosecution, accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, so as to enable him to answer the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution. Accused denied his complicity in the crime and did not choose to lead any defence on his behalf. 7. The learned Trial Court, on hearing the arguments and on evaluation of the evidence lead by the prosecution, raised one point for consideration, and answered the said point in the affirmative and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. This is how, the appellant – accused is now before this Court, challenging the said impugned judgment. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant – accused with all vehemence submits that, PW.1, being the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:17243 CRL.A No. 1415 of 2012 complainant and his wife, PW.2, being the interested witnesses because of property dispute, have spoken false evidence before the Court. No such injuries have been sustained by the complainant – PW.1. As per the evidence of PW.1 himself, there is a property dispute and there is no understanding with regard to the occupation of the threshing floor. According to his submission, complainant himself is an aggressor in trespassing and tries to take the life of the accused. It is contended that, to defend the accused himself, he must have used the said Gun. With an ulterior motive, a false complaint was filed by the complainant, suppressing all the material facts. This could be inferred from the trend of cross- examination directed to PW.1. According to his submission, even the wife of PW.1, i.e., PW.2 – Thangamma, has given different evidence from that of the evidence of PW.1. He would further submit that, the presence of PW.2 itself is doubtful at the scene of offence, as she came after hearing the Gunshot sound. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:17243 CRL.A No. 1415 of 2012 9. PW.3- the sister of the appellant is stated to be an eyewitness and the evidence of this PW.1 to PW.3 is quite inconsistent with each other. PW.4 – Madappa, is the known person to the complainant, who stays about 1 k.m away from the house of PW.1. PW.5 -B.S.Belliappa is also a person who knows the complainant and he speaks about blood-stained shirt and a pant owned by the complainant and speaks about mahazar Ex.P2. Even the cross-examination so directed to the witnesses shows that, no Gunpowder was found on the person of the complainant, who alleged to have suffered the Gunshots. PW.7 – Abdul Khayam has spoken about the Gun Licence and PW.8 – N.G. Prabhakar is the ballistic expert and their evidence would not inspire any confidence in the mind of the Court. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the appellant – accused took this Court to various evidence spoken by the witnesses and also pointed out contradictions and omissions arising in the evidence of the prosecution. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:17243 CRL.A No. 1415 of 2012 10. Per Contra, Sri. Channappa, the learned counsel for the State, with all vehemence submits that the learned Trial Court has assessed the evidence in proper perspective and has rightly come to the conclusion that PW.1 suffered the Gunshot injuries at the hands of the accused. There was a dispute with regard to the threshing floor sharing and as the accused was always threatening the complainant - PW.1 to kill him, he executed the same, when there was an enquiry by the complainant as to why he had left the cattle in the threshing floor belonging to the complainant’s share. A clear intention or motive is present in the mind of the accused to kill his own brother (PW.1). He further submits that PW.1, being the injured and PW.2, being the eyewitness, in their respective evidence have spoken consistently about quarrel between complainant and accused, so also threat of the accused to kill the complainant. In order to kill the complainant, accused brought his Gun and fired at the complainant, who sustained grievous injuries on his person. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:17243 CRL.A No. 1415 of 2012 11. He would submit that, complainant was in the hospital for a period of more than 20 days and he was unable to discharge his ordinary pursuits. He would further submit that, if injuries would have been serious, that too on the chest part, the complainant would have died on the spot itself. Because of fire by the accused, deep Gunshot injuries were sustained by the complainant. In support of his evidence, the learned HCGP also relies upon the evidence of complainant, his wife and other witnesses and especially that of the Doctor and Wound Certificate so produced. He prays to dismiss the appeal. 12. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of both sides. Meticulously perused the record. 13. In view of the rival submission of both sides, the points that would arise for my consideration are: 1. "Whether the Trial Court has committed any illegality or infirmity in finding the accused guilty of committing the offence under the provisions of Section 307 of IPC - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:17243 CRL.A No. 1415 of 2012 and under Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act? 2. If so, whether the judgment of conviction and order of sentence require interference by this Court?" Points Nos.1 and 2 are discussed together: 14. It is the specific allegation of the prosecution that, on 04.02.2006 at about 4.30 p.m, the accused herein on account of dispute between himself and his brother - complainant with regard to the drying of the coffee crop so put on the threshing floor situated at Kiggalu village in front of the pathway leading to their house, this accused, with an intention to kill him with a Gun possessed by him, fired at the complainant and succeeded in firing against the complainant and attempted to cause his murder. 15. In a case of present nature, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the ingredients of the offence so made out against the accused with all legal evidence. To substantiate the said facts, the prosecution relies upon - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:17243 CRL.A No. 1415 of 2012 the complaint averment marked at Ex.P1. This complaint is given by the complainant himself, being injured when he was taking treatment in the hospital on 04.02.2006 itself. He gave his statement at 7.15 p.m alleging that, there is some civil dispute with regard to the using of the threshing floor between himself and the accused. Because of the same, there was always a threat given by the accused that, he is going to kill the complainant, i.e., his brother. 16. On 04.02.2006, when the complainant had put his coffee crop in the portion allotted to him in the thresh yard for the purpose of drying, at about 4.30 p.m, when the complainant and his wife returned from the 'Kodava Mela', it was noticed that, the cattle belonging to the accused were in the threshing floor belonging to the complainant. The complainant and his wife removed the said cattle and enquired the accused that, why he had left his cattle in the threshing floor. At the time, the accused gave a threat that, he is going to kill the complainant and - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:17243 CRL.A No. 1415 of 2012 by saying so, he went inside the house and brought his Gun and fired at the complainant. Because of firing on the person of the complainant, he fell down and sustained injuries on his person and his wife started bombardment. Neighbors like one Premi w/o Nanaiah came there and gave him first aid treatment. He was shifted to Government Hospital in a jeep. In the hospital, he gave a statement as per Ex.P1. Based upon that, a crime was registered in Crime No.15/2006 against the accused. 17. During the course of investigation, police have seized the cloth owned by the injured under Ex.P2. They were subjected to forensic examination. Even as per Ex.P10, the police have seized the Gun used by the accused for the purpose of firing on the complainant in the presence of panchas. The facts of these seizures have not disputed by the defence in material particulars. Ex.P12 is the scene of offence panchanama, which was prepared in the presence of panchas by the IO. It shows, where exactly the offence took place and even it is - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:17243 CRL.A No. 1415 of 2012 noticed by the IO that, there were bloodstains on the floor as well as on the wall and the bloodstained soil was seized by the IO under this Ex.P12. The most important document is Ex.P5, the Wound Certificate. As per the Wound Certificate, the complainant had sustained the following 8 injuries on his person: "1. MAzÀÄ ºÀjzÀ UÁAiÀÄ JzÉAiÀÄ JqÀ¨sÁUÀzÀ ªÉƯÉAiÀÄ ºÀwÛgÀ 4 ¸ÉAn«Älgï MªÀ¯ï ±ÉÃ¥ï. 2. E£ÉÆßAzÀÄ ºÀjzÀ UÁAiÀÄ 1£Éà UÁAiÀÄzÀ PɼÀUÉ 6 ¸ÉA.«Ä MªÀ¯ï ±ÉÃ¥ï 3. JqÀªÉƯÉAiÀÄ PɼÀ¨sÁUÀzÀ°è 8 ¸ÉA.«Ä ºÀjzÀ UÁAiÀÄ 4. CzÉà ¥ÀæPÁgÀ, ºÀjzÀ UÁAiÀĪÁVzÀÄÝ, JzÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄA¨sÁUÀzÀ ªÀÄƼÉAiÀÄ PɼÀUÉ ¸ÀÄlÖ UÁAiÀi 5. CzÉà ¥ÀæPÁgÀ E£ÉÆßAzÀÄ ºÀjzÀ UÁAiÀÄ §®UÀtÂÚ£À ºÀÄ©â£À ªÉÄÃ¯É 3 «Ä.«Ä EzÀÄÝ §®UÀtÄÚ ¸ÀA¥ÀÆtðPÉÆ®å¥ïì DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. (±ÀæAPï) DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ) 6. E£ÉÆßAzÀÄ ºÀjzÀ UÁAiÀÄ JzÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÉƯÉAiÀÄ M¼À§¢AiÀÄ°è 21 ¸ÉA.«Älgï 7. E£ÉÆßAzÀÄ ºÀjzÀ UÁAiÀÄ JqÀUÉÊAiÀÄ »A§¢AiÀÄ vÉÆý£À ªÉÄÃ¯É 61 ¸ÉA«Ä. 8. E£ÉÆßAzÀÄ zÉÆqÀØ ºÀjzÀ UÁAiÀÄ JqÀUÉÊAiÀÄ »A§¢AiÀÄ°è vÉÆý£À ªÀÄzsÀå¨sÁUÀ¢AzÀ »rzÀÄ j¸ïÖªÀgÉUÉ EzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀjAiÀÄzÀÄ 208 ¸ÉA.«Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÁAiÀÄzÀ M¼À§¢AiÀÄ°è EgÀĪÀ ªÀiÁA¸À RAqÀ £ÀUÀgÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÀPÀÛ£Á¼ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÀjzÀĺÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀAzÀÄ¥ÀnÖ (lAqÀ£ï) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀzÀj J¯Áè ¨sÁUÀ PÀ¥ÀÄà§tÚzÁÝVvÀÄÛ." 18. According to the Doctor, all the injuries were fresh and blood was oozing. All the wounds are grievous in nature. The complainant was examined at 7-10 p.m on 04.02.2006. The fact of sustaining the aforesaid injuries by the complainant is not denied by the defence. The only defence of the accused is that, at the time of - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:17243 CRL.A No. 1415 of 2012 hunting, the complainant had sustained the said injuries. When and how the complainant had sustained injuries, no suggestions or questions are directed either to PW.1 or to any other witnesses by the defence. One more Wound Certificate is marked at Ex.P13 issued by the KMC Hospital, Mangaluru, wherein it shows that, complainant was examined at 11.45 p.m on 04.02.2006 and as per the records, the Doctor at KMC Hospital, Mangaluru, found following injuries so sustained by PW.1: "1. Grossly contaminated Gunshot injury of the volar aspect of the left forearm, injuring the median nerve, ulnar artery, brachioradialis, flexor digitorum superficialis, and flexor carpi radialis. 2. Pneumothorax on the left side of the chest. 3. Corneoscleral injury, right eye, with lid laceration (upper eyelid)." 19. According to the Doctor, the said injuries so stated in Ex.P13 are the grievous injuries. Sofaras other documentary evidence is concerned, the prosecution relies upon the report of the FSL – Ex.P7, wherein it shows that, under this exhibit a Gun was examined and - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:17243 CRL.A No. 1415 of 2012 after conducting the test, it was noticed that there were 3 cartridges of 12-bore from the laboratory stock and they were fired through SBBL Gun in Article No.1. This Gun shows the discharge of the bullet. The opinion reads as under: "1. The SBBL gun in Article No.1 bears signs of discharge 2. The SBBL gun in Article No.1 was in working condition at the time of examination. 3. The effective range of the SBBL gun in Article No.1 is about forty yards. 4. The cartridge case in Article No.2 has been fired through the SBBL gun in Article No.1. 5. The load piece in Article No.7 could be the component of 12 bore cartridge and the same could have been fired through the SBBL gun in Article No.1. 6. The holes marked as 5H and 6H on the shirt and pant in Article Nos.5 & 6 have been caused due to the passage of lead pellets. 7. The approximate range of firing with respect to holes marked as 5H on the Shirt in Article No.5 is about fifteen to twenty feet from the muzzle end of the gun." - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:17243 CRL.A No. 1415 of 2012 20. Even the method of examination also has been mentioned in this document. While marking this document, no little finger is raised by the defence. A cartridge is seized by the police and sent for chemical examination and as per the opinion of Assistant Director of Ballistics, it shows that “the cartridge case in Article No.2 has been fired through the SBBL Gun in Article No.1”. There are no repetitive extractor/ejector marks on the cartridge case in Article No.2, as well as on all testing cartridges. The opinion of the ballistics expert is very much clear that, from this Article No.2 Gun, called the SBBL Gun in Article No.1, there is a firing of a cartridge, which is not disputed by the defence in a proper manner. As per the Forensic Laboratory Report, as per Ex.P20, the seized cloth pockets were examined and observations were made by the FSL to show that, the said cloths Nos.1, 3 and 4 are stained with blood and Item No.2 is not stained with blood. This fact is also not disputed by the defence. Even another FSL report as per Ex.P17 shows the soil sample and is compared by the FSL. This - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:17243 CRL.A No. 1415 of 2012 report is also not disputed, so also the blood group of the victim - complainant as per Ex. P21. Thus, on scrupulous reading of all this documentary evidence, it do suggest, that, accused being the possessor of the said Gun Article No.1 examined by the FSL Ballistic Expert, there was a firing on 04.02.2006. In the said firing, the complainant had sustained injuries as noticed in the Wound Certificates stated supra and all the said injuries are grievous in nature. 21. PW.1, being the complainant, has reiterated the contents of the complaint and his statement before the police in his evidence on oath in his chief-examination. He is specific about sustaining of fire injuries at the hands of the accused person. He is specific that, at 7 p.m of that day, police recorded his statement as per Ex.P1. He is specific that in Magaluru Hospital, he was an inpatient for 20 days. This PW.1 has been directed with severe cross-examination by the defence. He is specific about the effecting of a partition between himself and accused. - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:17243 CRL.A No. 1415 of 2012 In the cross-examination, he deposed that, he does not know what is written in the complaint. According to him, whatever he has stated before the police is not written in the complaint. Placing reliance upon this evidence, the learned counsel for the accused submits that, complainant himself is not aware about the contents of the complaint; therefore, Ex.P1 is not duly proved in accordance with law. When complainant had sustained 8 Gunshot injuries, which are grievous in nature, was it possible for him to remember all the facts with regard to the incident to be explained? According to him, he had lost his consciousness. Further, he states that, after effecting the partition, all 4 brothers were residing separately and also in occupation of their respective shares independently. Whatever the properties allotted to him, he is cultivating the same. He admits that, the property in which he is cultivating, this accused has no right at all. The other factors which have been brought on record in the cross- examination are with regard to the ill-will and animosity developed in between himself and accused with regard to - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:17243 CRL.A No. 1415 of 2012 the property dispute. Even he is in possession of a Single-barrel Gun with him and it is submitted by the learned HCGP that, in a district like Kodagu, to protect the lives of the people from the wild animals, every citizen is possessing the Gun. But it has been misused by the accused to kill the complainant. The fact of possessing the Gun by the complainant as well as by accused is not in dispute. According to him, he has not seen MO No.1 – the said Gun. He does not possess any cartridges in his house. He says that there is ill-will between himself and accused for the last 9 years. This fact of ill-will is not denied by the defence. According to him, accused had forcibly encroached the property allotted to the share of the complainant and to that effect, he had not filed any civil suit against him. He had no difficulty to file any civil suit against the accused. He admits that, accused is also an agriculturist. 22. Though lengthy cross-examination is directed to this PW.1 by the defence, but sustaining of the bullet - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:17243 CRL.A No. 1415 of 2012 injuries by the complainant as stated in the Wound Certificate is not denied by the defence. Accused and complainant are brothers inter se and both are having ill- will with regard to the property dispute. For the last 9 years, as per the evidence of PW.1, there was an ill-will being developed between them. It is consistent evidence of PW.1 that, there was always a threat by the accused that he is going to kill the complainant. On 04.02.2006, the said incident of attempt to murder of the complainant took place. Thus, the motive is very much clear from the evidence of PW.1, that accused had an intention to kill the complainant. 23. Coupled with that, PW.2 – Thangamma, the wife of the complainant, is an eyewitness to the said incident. According to her, accused fired at her husband from at a distance of 15 feet. The said bullet hit the chest, as well as the hands and eyes of the complainant. He sustained injuries and blood started oozing from the injuries. When the fire took place, she was about 5 to 6 - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:17243 CRL.A No. 1415 of 2012 feet away from her husband. It was about 4.30 p.m on that day, when the said incident took place. Immediately her husband was taken to Madikeri Government Hospital along with Medhappa, Nanjappa and Devaiah. When they reached the hospital it was about 7.15 p.m. For first aid treatment, her husband was admitted to Emergency ward. There the Madikeri police came and recorded the statement of her husband. She identified MO.No.1 as the Gun used by the accused for the purpose of firing at her husband. She also specifically says that, there is a dispute with regard to the using of the threshing floor in between her husband and accused. In the cross- examination she admits that there was already a partition in between her husband and accused. She is consistent that, it is accused who fired on the complainant. She also stated that, as the cattle of the accused were in a threshing floor of the complainant, they removed the same. At that time, when there was an enquiry, accused brought a Gun from inside of the house and fired at her husband. The said galata took place for about 5 minutes - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC:17243 CRL.A No. 1415 of 2012 in the threshing floor. No public could see the said galata. Though she had been cross-examined at length, but she had withstood the test of cross-examination. Nothing worth is elicited so as to disbelieve her version given in her examination-in-chief. 24. PW.3 – Devaki Yane Dati Ganapathi stated to be an eyewitness to the said incident. According to her, at about 8 a.m., she and one Premi had been to Murnadu to attend the 'Kodava Mela' and at about 4 p.m, they returned and went to her brother’s house, i.e., complainant’s house. At that time, galata was taking place between the complainant and the accused about leaving cattle in the threshing floor. At that time, accused brought the Gun from inside his house and fired at complainant. The said bullet hit the chest and eye of the complainant and thereafter, after firing, accused went inside the house. She is the sister of the complainant and accused. She is consistent about the firing of bullet by the accused on the person of the complainant. She had - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC:17243 CRL.A No. 1415 of 2012 denied all the suggestions so directed to her. That means her evidence so spoken in the examination-in-chief shows that, she is an eyewitness of the said incident. To disbelieve that she is not an eyewitness, no effective cross-examination is directed to this PW.3 by the defence. 25. PW.4 – P.M.Medappa is another witness and he is a hearsay witness. According to him, there was a galata between accused and complainant and after getting information, he went in a jeep to the house of the complainant and accused. The said galata took place between 4.30 p.m and 5 p.m. When he saw the complainant, he was lying down and he had sustained bleeding injuries on his person. He was shifted to the hospital. Though the prosecution relies upon the evidence of PW.4 as an eyewitness, according to his own examination-in-chief, he arrived at the scene of offence only after hearing about the incident. Therefore, he cannot be branded as an eyewitness. His evidence is to be accepted to the extent that, he shifted the injured to - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC:17243 CRL.A No. 1415 of 2012 the hospital along with others. To that extent, I believe the evidence of PW.4. 26. PW.5 – B.S.Belliappa is another witness in whose presence the panchanama Ex.P2 was conducted and the cloth worn by the victim - injured were seized and marked at MO Nos.2 and 3. There is no effective cross-examination directed to PW.5 to that effect. Therefore, the evidence of PW.5 has to be accepted to the extent that, he was very much present when the panchanama under Ex.P2 was prepared as well as there was seizure of MO Nos.2 and 3. 27. PW.6 – Dr.Nanjaiah is the Doctor who was working at the Madikeri Hospital at the relevant time and initially clinically examined the victim at 7.10 p.m on 04.02.2006 and noticed the injuries as stated in Ex.P5 (supra). According to him, when the complainant was brought to the hospital, he was able to speak. It is informed to him that, his own elder brother, using the single-barrel Gun has fired at him. Thereafter, the police - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC:17243 CRL.A No. 1415 of 2012 came there and recorded the statement of the complainant as per Ex.P1. He has put an endorsement to that effect. The Doctor had stated about the nature of the injuries so sustained by the complainant in the said fire incident. He has been cross-examined at length by the defence, but he is consistent that, the said injuries Nos. 1 to 8, so mentioned in Ex.P5, are the Gunshot injuries and by using MO No.1 by firing the same, the said injuries can be caused. He admits that, he had not removed any Gunpowder from the said injuries when he gave a first aid treatment to the person of the complainant. He admits in the cross-examination that the injuries so mentioned in Ex.P5 may be possible at the time of hunting in the forest. 28. If the evidence of this Doctor is scrupulously perused, he is the first Doctor who examined the complainant after he sustained the Gunshot injuries as mentioned in Ex.P5 and gave first aid treatment. He is - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC:17243 CRL.A No. 1415 of 2012 specific about the injuries so sustained by the complainant. 29. PW.7 – Abdul Khayam was the Additional District Magistrate who issued the Gunlicence as per Ex.P6. He had issued the said certificate at the request of the IO. The fact of possessing the Gun by the accused is not disputed. Except the denial, nothing is elicited in the cross-examination. The said Gun licence was issued to make use of the said Gun for the purpose of protection of a life from wild animals. This fact is also admitted. But the accused had used the same for the purpose to kill his own brother but has not succeeded. 30. PW.8 – A.G.Prabhakar is the Assistant Director of FSL, who had examined the Item Nos.1, 2 and 5 to 7, which were brought for the chemical examination and issued a report to that effect. It is his evidence that, in the ballistically examined Item No.1 - Gun, it is noticed that, there was a symptom of firing by using the said Gun. The said Gun was in a usable condition and result of - 29 - NC: 2025:KHC:17243 CRL.A No. 1415 of 2012 the said bullet reaches upto 40 yards. Even the fired bullet was also examined and it was noticed by him that, the said bullet was fired by using the said Item No.1 – Gun. While marking the report as per Ex.P7, no objections were raised by the defence. The types of firing etc., have been brought on record in the cross- examination. The evidence of this witness proves that, by using Item No.1 – Gun only, the said bullet seized by the police was fired by the accused, who was the possessor of the Gun at the relevant time. 31. PW.9 – B.K.Poovappa, the person who was pancha to the seizure of the said Gun, has come before the Trial Court and spoken that, in his presence only, under Ex.P10, the said Gun was seized by the police. But he says that, he does not know the contents of the said panchanama Ex.P10. Seizure of the said panchanama is not denied by the defence. 32. PW.10 – P.K.Anil Kumar is the pancha to Ex.P10. He had been turned hostile. Nothing worth is - 30 - NC: 2025:KHC:17243 CRL.A No. 1415 of 2012 elicited from his mouth. Therefore, the evidence of PW.10 would not help the case of the prosecution. 33. PW.11 – P.N.Premi, the another witness who is stated to be the relation of the complainant and according to her evidence, when she went to the house of PW.2 along with PW.3, at that time, PW.2 screamed for help. On hearing the bombardment of the PW.2, she rushed to the spot and noticed falling of PW.1 and from his hand the blood was oozing. Immediately they called the police and got the jeep to shift the injured to the hospital. Her evidence shows that, she is not an eyewitness to the said incident and arrived at the spot only after hearing the crying sound of PW.2. To that extent, the evidence of this PW.11 is to be accepted. 34. PW.12 – Dr. Amaranath D. Saavur, is another Doctor of KMC Mangaluru Hospital. He had examined the complainant, noticed the injuries on the person of the complainant as shown in Ex.P13 narrated above. According to him, when the complainant was brought to - 31 - NC: 2025:KHC:17243 CRL.A No. 1415 of 2012 him, already complainant had taken the first aid treatment. He also gave some first aid treatment and got him admitted in the hospital. He has not removed the bullet or the Gunpowder from the injuries as per his cross-examination. Contents of Ex.P13 are not denied by the defence. To the extent of admitting this PW.1 in the said KMC Mangaluru Hospital and giving him treatment, the evidence of PW.12 is to be believed. 35. PW.13 – Hameed M.T is a businessman, who knows both accused and complainant. He is doing business in ginger, pepper etc., He had given the jeep for the purpose of shifting the injured to the hospital. He has been declared as hostile witness by the prosecution. But nothing worth is elicited. But one thing is clear that, in a jeep owned by this PW.13, injured was shifted to the hospital. 36. PW.14 – M.G.Raju is another pancha to Ex.P2 and under which certain Articles were seized by the police. He had been cross-examined at length, but - 32 - NC: 2025:KHC:17243 CRL.A No. 1415 of 2012 nothing worth is elicited. Thus, the evidence of PW.14 has to be accepted to the extent that in his presence Ex.P2 was prepared and blood stained cloths worn by the complainant were seized by the police. 37. PW.15 – M.N.Nagaraju, the Assistant Sub- Inspector at the relevant time speaks in his evidence that, at 7 p.m on 04.02.2006, he received a telephone call from the Government Hospital Madikeri. Accordingly, he went to the Government Hospital /at 7.10 p.m and noticed that the complainant was taking treatment. His statement was recorded as per Ex.P1 and came to the police station at 8.15 p.m and registered the crime in Crime No.15/2006 and set the criminal law in motion. He also speaks with regard to the seizure of Single Barrel Gun used the accused, which was produced by the accused himself from his house. He speaks about conducting part of the investigation and also seizure of said MO No.1 and Ex.P10. He also speaks with regard to the memo as per Ex.P16. No effective cross-examination - 33 - NC: 2025:KHC:17243 CRL.A No. 1415 of 2012 is directed to this witness so as to disbelieve his role of registering the crime and recording the statement of complainant and seizure of MO No.1. 38. PW.16 – Dhanaraj Achar, the Deputy Director of FSL has come before the Trial Court and has spoken about the sample in Ex.P18. To the extent of issuing Ex.P17, his evidence is to be accepted. 39. PW.17- Harishchandra K.P., was the police Sub- Inspector of Madikeri Rural Police Station at the relevant time and he had done the part of the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the accused. To the extent of filing charge sheet, his evidence is to be accepted. No effective cross-examination is directed to this witness by the defence. 40. PW.18 – N.A.Krishnaraju is another Assistant Director of FSL, speaks about chemical examination of the shirt, blood stained pant and blood stains mud, which were sent by the police for the purpose of the examination. He had issued Ex.P22. No effective cross- - 34 - NC: 2025:KHC:17243 CRL.A No. 1415 of 2012 examination is directed to this witness by the defence. Even certain Court questions are also directed to him and he had given proper answers with regard to the chemical examination of all these items so stated in Exs.P20, 21 and 22. Contents of these documents are not denied by the defence. 41. PW.19 – Somaiah, an agriculturist, was the pancha to Ex.P12, but has been turned hostile. Nothing worth is elicited from his mouth in the cross-examination that by the prosecution. 42. PW.20 – P.A.Harish @ Devaiah another witness, who went to the scene of offence on getting knowledge about the injuries sustained by complainant. But has been turned hostile. Nothing worth is elicited from his mouth in his cross-examination by the prosecution. Therefore, evidence of PW.20 would not help the case of the prosecution. 43. PW.21 – Susheela is another witness, who came to know about the injuries being sustained by the - 35 - NC: 2025:KHC:17243 CRL.A No. 1415 of 2012 complainant and she is not an eyewitness to the said incident. But speaks about the animosity developed in between the complainant and the accused. She has been cross-examined by the defence, but nothing worth is elicited. Her evidence is to be accepted to the extent that, what are all the injuries being sustained by the complainant has been noticed by this witness. 44. PW.22 – Ashok A.N the jeep driver, who shifted the injured to the hospital has come before the Trial Court and speaks about the injuries being sustained and who has caused said injuries as per the talks being taken place in the jeep, when they were moving towards the hospital. Nothing worth is elicited from his mouth. He is not an eyewitness to the incident. His evidence is to be accepted to the extent that he shifted the injured to the hospital. 45. PW.23 – P.G.Somaiah is another witness speaks about the ill-will between complainant and accused and also getting knowledge about the fire injuries sustained - 36 - NC: 2025:KHC:17243 CRL.A No. 1415 of 2012 by the complainant through telephone. To that extent his evidence is to be accepted. 46. PW.24 – B.G.Umesha, is the Police Constable, who has scribed the Ex.P10 – panchanama and seizure of MO Nos.4 to 10. To that extent the evidence of this witness is to be believed. 47. PW.25 – Dr. Ali, the orthopedician of Mangaluru KMC Hospital has given treatment to the complainant. He speaks with regard to the bullet injuries sustained by the complainant as noticed in the Wound Certificate. There is no effective cross-examination by the defence. He is specific about the injuries being sustained by the complainant, which are bullet shot injuries. 48. PW.26 – L. Prakash, is the Assistant Director of FSL identified Ex.P20, the sample seal, as well as gave his report as per Ex.P21. To that extent, the evidence of this witness is to be accepted. 49. On over all reading of the evidence of the witnesses, except the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2, the - 37 - NC: 2025:KHC:17243 CRL.A No. 1415 of 2012 other witnesses are not the eyewitnesses to the said incident. Therefore, now with regard to the appreciation of the evidence of the injured witness, as well as the evidence of PW.2 – wife of the complainant plays an important role to believe the story of the prosecution. For that, we have to ascertain that, whether PW.1 and PW.2’s evidence inspire confidence in the mind of the Court. Though these PW.1 and PW.2 were cross-examined at length, the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 remained unshaken in the cross-examination. Both have confidently deposed that, in between appellant - accused and PW.1 quarrel took place on the date of incident. Both PW.1 and appellant - accused had strained relationship for the last 9 years prior to the incident. It has come in their evidence that, both were not in talking terms. It is stated that in between the said threshing floor, at the middle, they have put the wooden plank for the purpose of bifurcation of the said threshing floor in between them. When PW.1 - complainant enquired about leaving of the cattle, the accused went inside the house and brought a - 38 - NC: 2025:KHC:17243 CRL.A No. 1415 of 2012 Single-barrel Gun and fired at complainant - PW.1. Because of this firing on the complainant, he sustained injuries on his right eye, chest, left hand and he fell down. When the said incident took place, his wife was about 10 feet away from him. Immediately after he falling down, his wife and one Premi came there and thereafter, he was shifted to the Government hospital, Madikeri and thereafter to Mangaluru hospital, wherein he took treatment for a period of 20 days. With regard to the ill-will in between complainant and accused, certain questions are directed in the cross-examination, but nothing worth is elicited from the mouth of PW.1 so as to disbelieve his version spoken in his chief-examination. There are certain minor contradictions, omissions in the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 which will not go to the root of the case. 50. The trend of cross-examination directed to PW.1 by the accused do establish about strained relationship in between complainant (PW.1) and accused, even there - 39 - NC: 2025:KHC:17243 CRL.A No. 1415 of 2012 were exchange of police complaints in between them. This PW.1 is specific that, forcibly accused had taken possession of his property. All the suggestions directed to PW.1 are denied by him. Likewise PW.2 - Thangamma, wife of the complainant had confidently deposed in her evidence that, accused fired at her husband from a distance of 15 feet and the said bullet hit on the chest and eye of her husband. She went near her husband and noticed oozing of blood from the said bullet injuries. Even she is specific about strained relationship in between her husband and accused. She deposed that, when accused was quarrelling with her husband, she was the only person who witnessed the quarrel and no public person witnessed the said quarrel. She brought her husband to the Madikeri Government hospital. Thus, she confidently had spoken about firing on her husband by the accused and she confirmed that, it was accused who fired at her husband. - 40 - NC: 2025:KHC:17243 CRL.A No. 1415 of 2012 51. PW.3 - Devaki Yane Dati Ganapathi, is an eyewitness to the said incident, who is sister of complainant and accused. She is specific about fire injuries sustained by the complainant because of firing by the accused by using the Gun. She being a sister of the accused, so also complainant, it's been her evidence that, firing on the person of the complainant by the accused. She too has been cross-examined. There is no evidence brought on record through out her cross-examination that, this PW.3 had animosity and ill-will against accused to speak against her own brother. 52. PW.4 - P.M Medappa is the person who shifted injured to the hospital and according to him there was a quarrel with regard to the threshing floor in between complainant and accused. With regard to the recovery of the cloth worn by the victim, PW.5 G.S.Belliappa specifically stated about preparation of recovery panchanama as per Ex.P2 in his presence on 18.02.2006, - 41 - NC: 2025:KHC:17243 CRL.A No. 1415 of 2012 which are identified as MO Nos.2 and 3. No effective cross-examination is directed to this PW.5. 53. Two Doctors are examined in this case i.e., PW.6 - Dr. Nanjaiah and PW.12 Dr. Amarnath D. Savur. These doctors are specific in their deposition about injuries noticed in the Wound Certificates issued by them. PW.6 had issued Ex.P5 - the Wound Certificate, whereas PW.12 had issued Ex.P13 as noticed above. These two doctors are specific that, from the injuries so sustained by PW.1- complainant, no Gunpowder was removed. To show that, the said injuries are sustained because of firing by accused by using the said MO No.1 - Single- barrel Gun, prosecution examined PW.8 - A.G.Prabhakar, the Assistant Director of FSL Bangalore. On scientific examination of the said MO No.1, PW.8 has noticed the following symptoms in MO No.1 "1. ªÀ¸ÀÄÛ ¸ÀA.1 gÀ°è EzÀÝAvÀºÀ MAn£À½UÉAiÀÄ §AzÀÆQ¤AzÀ UÀÄAqÀÄ ºÁj¹zÀ aºÉß PÀAqÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. 2. ªÀ¸ÀÄÛ ¸ÀA.1 gÀ°è EzÀÝAvÀºÀ MAn £À½UÉAiÀÄ §AzÀÆPÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÀjÃQë¸ÀĪÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è ZÁ®Æ ¹ÜwAiÀÄ°èvÀÄÛ. 3. ªÀ¸ÀÄÛ ¸ÀA.1 gÀ°è EzÀÝAvÀºÀ MAn£À½UÉAiÀÄ §AzÀÆQ£À ¥ÀjuÁªÀÄPÁj zÀÆgÀªÀÅ 40 UÀdUÀ¼ÀÄ DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. - 42 - NC: 2025:KHC:17243 CRL.A No. 1415 of 2012 4. ªÀ¸ÀÄÛ ¸ÀA.2 gÀ°è EzÀÝAvÀºÀ SÁ° vÉÆÃlªÀÅ ªÀ¸ÀÄÛ ¸ÀA.1 gÀ°è EzÀÝAvÀºÀ MAn£À½UÉAiÀÄ §AzÀÆQ£À°è ºÁj¸À®ànÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. 5. ªÀ¸ÀÄÛ ¸ÀA.7 gÀ°è EzÀÝAvÀºÀ ¹Ã¸ÀzÀ ZÀÆgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 12 ¨ÉÆÃj£À vÉÆÃlzÀ ¨sÁUÀªÁVzÀÄÝ CzÀ£ÀÄß ªÀ¸ÀÄÛ £ÀA.1 gÀ°è EzÀÝAvÀºÀ MAn£À½UÉ §AzÀÆQ¤AzÀ ºÁj¹gÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ. 6. ªÀ¸ÀÄÛ ¸ÀA.5 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 6 EªÀÅUÀ¼À°èzÀÝAvÀºÀ CAV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÁåAmï£À ªÉÄÃ¯É UÀÄgÀÄw¸À®àlÖAvÀºÀ 5 ºÉZï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 6 ºÉZï EAzÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄw¸ÀàlÖ gÀAzsÀæUÀ¼ÀÄ ¹Ã¸ÀzÀ ZÀgÉUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÉƼÀºÉÆPÁzÀUÀ GAmÁzÀAvÀºÀ gÀAzsÀæUÀ¼ÀÄ DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. 7. ªÀ¸ÀÄÛ ¸ÀA.5 gÀ°è EzÀÝAvÀºÀ 5 ºÉZï JAzÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄvÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ®àlÖ gÀAzsÀæªÀÅ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 15 jAzÀ 20 Cr CAvÀgÀzÀ°è UÀÄAqÀ£ÀÄß ºÁj¹zÀgÉ GAmÁUÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ." 54. To that effect he had issued Ex.P7 - FSL report. Thus, recovery of said weapon MO No.1 is proved from the evidence of witness i.e., PW.9 and PW.10, but they have deposed that the Gun was seized in their presence, but they do not know that it belongs to whom, but say that, when the said MO No.1 was seized accused was very much present, so also PW.9 and PW.10. 55. To show that victim sustained bullet injuries, PW.11 - P.N.Premi has deposed that, on hearing the sound of PW.2, she rushed to the spot and noticed bullet injuries on the person of the complainant and blood was oozing. In a jeep the injured was shifted to the hospital. From the evidence of these witnesses, especially that of - 43 - NC: 2025:KHC:17243 CRL.A No. 1415 of 2012 the doctor stated supra, PW.6 has stated about giving primary treatment to the victim, thereafter the victim was shifted to Mangaluru Hospital. Likewise, PW.12 had deposed about treatment on the victim as the injuries were grievous in nature. Both are specific that, complainant had sustained bullet injuries. Thus, these two doctors had physically and medically examined the victim and noticed bullet injuries on the person of the complainant. After 20 days, the victim was discharged from the hospital. These two witnesses identified their respective certificates stated supra, with regard to the injuries and the treatment on the complainant. They identified their hand writing. 56. From the depositions of the witnesses named above and the documents relied upon, there can be no iota of doubt that, the victim was shot on 04.02.2006 at about 4.30 p.m near his house i.e., threshing floor, when complainant had questioned this accused why he had left the cattle in his threshing floor. The complainant PW.1 - 44 - NC: 2025:KHC:17243 CRL.A No. 1415 of 2012 and PW.2 have identified the accused as the person, who had fired at complainant so also the sister - Devaki had clearly deposed about identification of accused when the incident took place. 57. Though the learned counsel for the appellant - accused submitted that, the evidence so placed on record do not establish the case of the prosecution, but when these victim as well as his wife and sister have deposed about the criminal act of the accused. Referring to the evidence of the complainant, it is empathically argued by counsel for the accused that, the evidence of PW.1 do not inspire any confidence so also other witnesses. 58. With greatest respect, the evidence of the witnesses have to be read as a whole. Words and sentences cannot be truncated and read in isolation. The witnesses described above have categorically stated that, it was accused who used the Gun MO No.1 and fired at the complainant - PW.1. The suggestion so directed to all the witnesses do established about the strained - 45 - NC: 2025:KHC:17243 CRL.A No. 1415 of 2012 relationship. PW.1 is consistent that always accused used to give threat to him that he is going to kill him. The judgment of the Trial Court has to be read in its entirety. Though we find certain casual approach of the Investigation Officer who had been testified by the prosecution, the Trial Court found that the accused was positively identified by all the witnesses as the author of the crime. The learned Trial Court in the course of its judgment has categorically observed about the authoring of the crime by the accused. I do not find any error in the findings of the Sessions Court to warrant any interference by this Court. When there is a time gap between occurrence and the trial, neither it is impossible for the police and Investigation Officer to recall minute details, nor it is possible for a surgeon performing an operation to remove the Gunpowder from the body of the patient to throw light on the chain on the custody of the bullet, after it was made over to the attending nurse. Thus, there was sufficient incriminating evidence for conviction for the appellant - accused by the Trial Court. - 46 - NC: 2025:KHC:17243 CRL.A No. 1415 of 2012 59. In the course of trial, the Trial Court has considered the evidence on record at length. PW.1 and PW.2, being the victim and eyewitness, so also PW3 - another eyewitness, the own sister of complainant and accused to the crime have reiterated their respective statements. Being the victim, the complainant confidently has stated about firing at him by the accused and the evidence of these witnesses could not be shaken in the cross-examination by the defence. Evidence of IO is testified to the recovery of the weapon of offence in the presence of panchas at the instance of the appellant - accused, which is identified by the complainant. Considering the gravity of the offence and seriousness of the injuries and the manner in which the victim was shot by the accused, there can hardly be any doubt that the attempt was to murder the victim. The Trial Court after considering the evidence on record and after hearing the prosecution has found that, accused is guilty of an offence under Section 307 of IPC and Section 3 read with Section 25 of Arms Act. Rightly the Sessions Court has sentenced - 47 - NC: 2025:KHC:17243 CRL.A No. 1415 of 2012 the appellant - accused to undergo the sentence as stated supra. Even the Trial Court has ordered to run the sentence concurrently. Thus, the Trial Court has rightly held and found that: (i) It had been established beyond any iota of doubt that the victim had sustained bullet injuries. It had also been proved that the incident had taken place and in the manner alleged by the complainant. (ii) The contention of the defence that, the said injuries were sustained by the complainant while hunting is disproved. It is not disputed by the defence that injuries were not so life threatening or grave is also not proved. The gravity and seriousness of the injuries definitely attracts Section 307 of IPC considering the testimony of 2 medical experts deposed - 48 - NC: 2025:KHC:17243 CRL.A No. 1415 of 2012 with regard to the gravity and seriousness of the injuries. (iii) The evidence of Assistant Director of FSL coupled with the report establish that, an offence attracting the provision of Section 307 of IPC had taken place. (iv) The recovery of weapon in terms of panchanama stated supra was proved beyond reasonable doubt. (v) Minor contradictions, omissions and irregularities in conducting investigation would not vitiate the case of the prosecution. (vi) The appellant was duly identified by PW.1 his own brother, wife of PW.1 and appellant sister Devaki as the author of the crime. Recovery of the weapon is duly proved from the evidence of IO. (vii) The prosecution has established from the ballistic report and the evidence of FSL - 49 - NC: 2025:KHC:17243 CRL.A No. 1415 of 2012 experts that the said bullet was fired from MO No.1, which was found at the scene of offence and the weapon was recovered on the confession of the appellant - accused. 60. The learned Session Judge, in my considered opinion correctly found that, notwithstanding minor discrepancies, the prosecution had successfully established the chain of event, linking the crime to inter alia the appellant. The findings of the Sessions Court are the sound findings and do not warrant any interference by this Court, therefore points raised supra have to be answered against the appellant and in favour of prosecution. 61. For the reasons discussed above, the appeal so filed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed and judgment of conviction and order of sentence deserves to be affirmed. 62. The accused has to surrender before the Trial Court within 15 days from today. The Trial Court shall - 50 - NC: 2025:KHC:17243 CRL.A No. 1415 of 2012 secure the presence of the accused in accordance with law and commit him to prison. 63. Resultantly, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Appeal is dismissed. (ii) The impugned judgment of conviction dated 12.12.2012 and order of sentence dated 20.12.2012 passed by Ad-hoc District Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Kodagu, Madikeri is hereby confirmed. (iii) Bail bond of accused, if any, stands cancelled. (iv) The accused is directed to surrender before the Trial Court within 15 days from today. The Trial Court shall secure the presence of the accused in accordance with law and commit him to prison. (v) Send back the Trial Court Records along with copy of this judgment forthwith. - 51 - NC: 2025:KHC:17243 CRL.A No. 1415 of 2012 (vi) Send the operative portion of this judgment to the Trial Court by e-mail for compliance forthwith. (vii) Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2