JUDGMENT S. M N. Raina, J. This is an appeal by Parma aged about 25 years who has been convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years u/s 307, Indian Penal Code by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind. Appellant Parma is a resident of mouza Bhat Pura which is at a distance of about 2 to 3 miles from mouza Litiyapura. Fodalia, father of the appellant and Hubba, cousin of the appellant owned some agricultural land in mouza Litiyapura. They sold the land to deceased Sobran and his cousin Mahadeo (P. W. 5). Fodalia wanted this land to be sold back to him, but Sobran and Mahadeo declined. This led to a quarrel and also litigation between the parties. Doji is the elder brother of the appellant Parma. The case of the prosecution is that on account of the aforesaid dispute over the land Doji wanted to take revenge on Sobran and Mahadeo. He, therefore, absconded from the village and joined a gang of dacoits led by Madhosingh. On 15-10-67, appellant Parma brought a gang of dacoits to village Litiyapura. Some of them went to the house of Mahadeo (P. W. 6), some to the house of deceased Baghunath and others to the house of Sobran. Parma appellant, who was armed with a gun fired at Baghunath, Bamswarup and Jagdish. Baghunath and Bamswarup were killed while Jagdish sustained a grievous injury. Sobran and Sardarsingh were shot dead by other dacoits. According to the prosecution the appellant abetted commission of their murder, The appellant was thus tried on a charge of murder of Baghunath and Ramswarup u/s 302, Indian Penal Code and of abetment of murder of Sardarsingh and Sobran u/s 302 read with section, 114 Indian Penal Code. He was also tried on a charge u/s 307, Indian Penal Code for attempting to commit murder of Jagdish u/s 307, Indian Penal Code. The appellant abjured his guilt and his defence was that he was not at all present at the spot. The trial Court acquitted the appellant of the charges of murder as well as of the charge of abetment of murder, but convicted him of an offence u/s 307, Indian Penal Code for attempting to commit murder of Jagdish. Being aggrieved thereby the appellant has preferred this appeal. The trial Court acquitted the appellant of the charges of murder as well as of the charge of abetment of murder, but convicted him of an offence u/s 307, Indian Penal Code for attempting to commit murder of Jagdish. Being aggrieved thereby the appellant has preferred this appeal. It is clear from the evidence on record that on the date of occurrence the dacoits visited village Litiyapura, armed with guns and shot dead four persons, namely-Sardar Singh, Sobran, Baghunath and Bamswarup while Jagdish sustained a grievous injury. The fact that Jagdish sustained a gun-shot wound is also borne out by the evidence of Dr. Jain (P. W, 12). I need not discuss this evidence at length because the fact that Jagdish sustained a gun-shot wound at the time of occurrence has not been disputed. The main question for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant had fired at Jagdish and caused the injury found on his person. The solitary witness on this point is Jagdish himself and we have to consider whether his testimony can be safely relied upon. We have to bear in mind that Jagdish. (P. W. 8) is a young boy aged 13 years and it was night time. Jagdiah admitted in cross-examination that there was no light except the Moon-light. There most bare been a lot of confusion and consternation when the dacoita arrived, and, therefore, it is necessary to see if Jagdish could properly identify the person who shot him. It no doubt appears that the appellant was known to Jagdish but the learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that in this case the Investigating Officer did not record the statement of Jagdish at any stage, and, therefore, the appellant was deprived of an opportunity to cross-examine Jagdish with reference to Ms earliest version. The Sub-Inspector Ram Naresh Singh (P. W. 10) who investigated this case was unable to offer any explanation for not recording the statement of Jagdish. In paragraph 3 of his statement he stated as under :- In Gopal Krishna Vs. State, it was observed as under in paragraph 22: It is obvious that though the police are not bound to make a record of the statement of the witnesses u/s 161 as a matter of obligation, it is their duty to do so when the witness is a material witness for unfolding the prosecution story. State, it was observed as under in paragraph 22: It is obvious that though the police are not bound to make a record of the statement of the witnesses u/s 161 as a matter of obligation, it is their duty to do so when the witness is a material witness for unfolding the prosecution story. It is also clear that a failure on their part to comply with the requirements of section 161(3), though does not fender the subsequent statement of the witness at the trial inadmissible, it does greatly impair the value of the evidence of that witness. I folly agree with this view. It is the duty of an Investigating Officer to record the statements of eye-witnesses and of other material witnesses. In a case like this where there is a solitary eye- witness there can be no justification whatsoever for not recording his statement and the conduct of the Investigating Officer in the absence of any plausible explanation must be viewed with suspicion. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that it is very likely that although the statement of Jagdish was recorded by the Investigating Officer, it is being suppressed because it is not in favour of the prosecution. This contention cannot be said to be without force in the circumstances of this case. By not recording the statement of Jagdish during investigation the appellant has been denied a very valuable opportunity of testing the veracity of the witness with reference to his earliest version, and, therefore, it is difficult to attach any weight or value to the statement of Jagdish in Court. Learned counsel for the appellant further pointed out that although according to Jagdish (P. W. 8), Mahadeo (P. W. 5) and Siyaram (P. W. 6) were present nearby at the time of occurrence {vide paragraph 4 of his deposition), both Mahadeo and Siyaram do not even mention the presence of appellant Parma among the miscreants. This is very significant and makes it all the mine unsafe to place any reliance on the testimony of Jagdish. There are two other features of the case, which are pertinent to note m this connection. The name of appellant Parma is not mentioned in the first information report (Ex. P. 10), although it was lodged by Rahim Khan on information furnished by Mahadeo who appears to have seen the miscreants in action. There are two other features of the case, which are pertinent to note m this connection. The name of appellant Parma is not mentioned in the first information report (Ex. P. 10), although it was lodged by Rahim Khan on information furnished by Mahadeo who appears to have seen the miscreants in action. Further, from the note 6 in the spot map (Ex. P. 5) it appears that the ease of the prosecution was that Jagdish was hurt by the same shot which was fired at deceased Raghunath, because the bullet after passing through his body hit Jagdish and caused him the injury found on his person. The appellant was tried on a charge of murder of Raghunath and the trial Court after carefully considering the evidence on the point observed in paragraph 23 that there was no evidence to show that the appellant Parma shot at and killed Raghunath Singh. The appellant-was therefore, acquitted of the charge of murder of Raghunath Singh and the State Government have not filed any appeal against his acquittal. If the appellant did not fire at Raghunath Singh and caused his death, it would appear that he was also not responsible for causing the injury to Jagdish in view of the aforesaid case of the prosecution. Jagdish also could not say, who shot and killed Raghunath, In these circumstances, it is extremely doubtful, if he could seethe person who shot at him. It is not unlikely that the appellant is being implicated because he is the brother of Doji, who joined the gang of dacoits and participated in the commission of these offences along with the dacoits. Thus, after a careful consideration of the entire evidence on record I find that it is extremely unsafe to place any reliance on the sole testimony of Jagdish (P. W. S) and therefore hold that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge u/s 307, Indian Penal Code against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the appellant is acquitted of the offence u/s 307, Indian Penal Code for attempting to commit the murder of Jagdish. His conviction and sentence are hereby set aside. He shall be set at liberty forthwith unless required in any other case. Final Result : Allowed