Non-recovery of weapon does not defeat reliable ocular and medical evidence; sentence reduced for proportionality and mitigation.

Non-recovery of the firearm did not vitiate conviction where injured eyewitness accounts, medical evidence and pellet recovery from the scene consistently established use of the weapon; the conviction under Section 324 IPC was therefore upheld. On sentence, proportionality and mitigating circumstances required reduction because the injury was not grievous, there was no fracture, the incident was old, the parties were neighbours and there were no criminal antecedents. The rigorous imprisonment term was reduced from three years to one year, with compensation directed under Section 357(3) CrPC. The conviction stood, but the punishment was modified.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the conviction under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 could be sustained despite non-recovery of the weapon used in the occurrence; (ii) whether the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of three years imposed for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 required reduction.

Issue (i): Whether the conviction under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 could be sustained despite non-recovery of the weapon used in the occurrence.

Analysis: The ocular version of the injured witnesses and the supporting medical evidence established that the injury was caused by a firearm. The investigating officer also recovered pellets from the wall of the shop where the incident occurred. The absence of recovery of the country made pistol, by itself, was held not sufficient to discredit the prosecution case when the evidence of the witnesses and the medical material consistently pointed to use of the weapon.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was upheld, and the challenge to it failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of three years imposed for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 required reduction.

Analysis: Sentencing must reflect proportionality, just punishment, the nature of the offence, the nature of the injury, the weapon used, the age of the occurrence, and the absence of criminal antecedents. The medical evidence showed that the injury was not grievous and there was no fracture, only a muscle injury. The incident was old, the parties were neighbours, and the legislative scheme permitted judicial discretion in fixing an appropriate sentence.

Conclusion: The sentence was reduced from three years' rigorous imprisonment to one year's rigorous imprisonment, and compensation was directed to be paid to the victim under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Final Conclusion: The conviction under Section 324 was maintained, but the punishment was modified to a lesser term with compensation, so the appeal succeeded only in part.

Ratio Decidendi: Non-recovery of the weapon is not, by itself, enough to disbelieve otherwise reliable ocular and medical evidence, and sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the surrounding circumstances.

---