Short Note : 1. These two appeals are against the conviction and sentence to rigorous imprisonment, for five years to each of the appellants under section 307, Indian Penal Code passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sheopur. The appellants were further charged under sections 25 and 26 of the Arms Act but they have been acquitted thereunder. 2. Brier facts were that on 10-11-1976 Anandrao Pawar, Sub-Divisional Officer (Police) P. W. 5 was on his way from Baroda to Sheopur in a jeep driven by Head Constable Babu Beg (P.W. 1). It is alleged that on the way Sarda Balbir Singh (P.W. 3) was coming that way on his tractor. He is said to have told the Sub-Divisional Officer (Police) that 4-5 miscreants Bhagchand, Chhatanki and others of Chhatanki-dacoit gang were sitting on the culvert of Abda canal. Thereupon, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Police) taking along with him A.S.I. Shersingh, Station Officer Dhodhar and Head Constable Babu Beg, Jeep Driver, proceeded to the spot. They left behind the jeep. It is alleged that after reaching the spot, from distance they challenged some miscreants who were seen from a distance, sitting on the culvert. At that time it has become dark being past 6.30 P. M. in the month of November. 3. The further allegation is that when the police force challenged the miscreants, the latter opened fire towards them. Thereafter there was an exchange of fire. Soon after the miscreants managed to run away from the place. 4. Next day morning the police again went to the spot and found dead body of one Surjan who himself supposed to be a member of the dacoit-gang. A gun was also found there. Later on, during the course of investigation the appellants were arrested and prosecuted, with the result mentioned above. 5. The appellants abjured the guilt and contended that they have been falsely implicated. 6. The learned trial Court relying upon the testimony of Sub-Divisional Officer (Police), Anand Rao Pawar (P.W. 5). Head Constable Babu Beg (P.W.1) and Station Officer Shersingh (P.W.6) held that an offence under section 307, Indian Penal Code has been established against the appellants. Held : I have gone through the evidence on record carefully and have come to the conclusion that the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained from the evidence on record. Head Constable Babu Beg (P.W.1) and Station Officer Shersingh (P.W.6) held that an offence under section 307, Indian Penal Code has been established against the appellants. Held : I have gone through the evidence on record carefully and have come to the conclusion that the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained from the evidence on record. It may be believed that Balbirsingh (P.W. 3) had seen the appellants and others sitting on the culvert earlier in the day. Merely that fact would not be sufficient to conclude that it was the appellants who had opened the fire against the police party. It is pertinent to note that Babu Beg (P.W. 1) has not said a word if he had identified the appellants as the persons who were sitting on the culvert and it was the appellants who were firing towards them. The same is to be found from the testimony of Shersingh (P. W. 6). Even the Sub-Divisional Officer (Police Anand Rao Pawar (P. W. 5) has not staled a word that he had identified the appellants sitting on the pulia firing at them. It is also pertinent to note that none of these witnesses knew the appellants from before. This would be seen specially from the testimony of Shersingh (P.W. 6). 7. It is also worthy to note that Anand Rao Pawar (P.W. 5) has admitted in his deposition that he alongwith his party reached the spot about two hours after meeting Balbirsingh (P. W. 3). Thus, it is not a fact that the police party reached the spot immediately after being informed by Balbirsingh (P.W. 3) regarding the appellants. In view of the above evidence on record, disagreeing with the learned trial Court, I conclude that the offence under section 307, Indian Penal Code has not been established against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Appeal allowed.