Hima Kohli JUDGMENT
N.V. Ramana, C.J.I.
1. The present appeal arises from the judgment dated 26.05.2017 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 1870/2005. The High Court dismissed the Appellant's appeal against judgment dated 18.08.2005 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Sidhi in Sessions Trial No. 119/2003, confirming his conviction Under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 ('Arms Act').
2. The Appellant was sentenced to undergo three years of rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- Under Section 307 Indian Penal Code. He was further sentenced to undergo three years of rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- Under Section 27 of the Arms Act and one year of rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- Under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Appellant has undergone approximately 1 year, 7 months of his sentence and was released on bail by this Court during the pendency of the present appeal.
3. The factual matrix as per the prosecution is that, on 14.02.2003 at about 10:30 p.m., the Appellant and co-Accused went to the complainant's house and called him outside. When the complainant came out, the Appellant fired at him with a country-made pistol. The complainant (PW2) is stated to have run into the house and escaped injury while the Appellant and co-Accused filed from the spot on their motorcycle. The complainant's mother (PW3) was allegedly present in the house at the time of the incident and the complainant's neighbours (PW1, PW10, PW11) arrived upon hearing the sound of gunfire. The firearm used in the alleged incident is stated to have been recovered from the Appellant, along with an empty cartridge.
4. The prosecution charged the Appellant and co-Accused Under Section 307/34 Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1B) (a) and Section 27(1) of the Arms Act. After perusal of evidence on record and examination of witnesses, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the Appellant as specified above while acquitting the co-Accused, as the prosecution had failed to prove the charges against him. By way of impugned order dated 26.05.2017, the Madhya Pradesh High Court confirmed the Appellant's conviction and sentence. Aggrieved, the Appellant approached this Court in appeal by way of special leave.
5. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has contended that the entire case of the prosecution is based on the testimony of the complainant (PW2) and the hearsay evidence of his mother (PW3), who is an interested witness, and there is no corroborative........