JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Dungarpur dated 13/12/1976 by which the appellants were convicted for the offence under sections 307/34 and 332/34 and sentenced to three years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to undergo six months R.I. for the first count and one years R.I, for the second count. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that on 17/5/74, the Station House Officer, Bhambola received information about certain trucks going to Gujarat from Rajasthan loaded with rice. The S.H.O. along with constables went to arrange a trap and blocked the way in between Dungarpur to Simalwada. Four trucks passed that way. Despite efforts, the police personnel could not detain them and fired guns which hit the tyres of the trucks. Somebody sitting in these trucks fired the gun from inside which hit the elbow of constable Dhula, accompanying the S.H.O. The trucks reached Ahmedabad. The Gujarat police on being informed about certain persons having taken the trucks in this way to Gujarat and causing hurt to the police employees tried to apprehend the trucks and the miscreants. B.N. Sanya (PW.7) saw two trucks bearing Nos. RSQ 5052 and DHG 3134 standing near Basant Cinema. He informed a the control room. The trucks No. 3134 after a short while was taken away from there by Driver Indersingh and Ranveersingh who was sitting in that trucks. The two trucks were taken in possession by the Police and three accused appellants were arrested. After investigation, chargesheet against the accused was filed in the Court of Munsif Magistrate, Dungarpur who committed the accused person to the Court of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Dungarpur to stand their trial there. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge proceeded with the trial. Nine witnesses were examined from the prosecution side. The accused in his statement totally denied the allegations levelled against them. No defence witness was examined. 3. The learned trial Judge placed reliance on the prosecution case and passed the judgment under appeal. 4. I heard Mr. B.R. Purohit, learned counsel for the appellants and Dr. S.S. Bhandawat, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 5. Mr. The accused in his statement totally denied the allegations levelled against them. No defence witness was examined. 3. The learned trial Judge placed reliance on the prosecution case and passed the judgment under appeal. 4. I heard Mr. B.R. Purohit, learned counsel for the appellants and Dr. S.S. Bhandawat, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 5. Mr. Purohit strenuously contended that from the record it is not evident as to whether the three appellants were there in any of the trucks and who was driving the truck from which the gun is said to have been fired. It has also been contended by Mr. Purohit that in this case identification parade was held on 2/7/74, about a month and half after the said incident, and that identification has not been placed reliance by the trial court. According to the learned counsel, this being the position there is no evidence against any of the appellant to connect them with the commission of the crime. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor controverted these arguments on the ground that from the statement of Kamla Shankar (P.W. 8) it is proved that appellant Indersingh was driving the truck from which the gun was fired and Ramkaran and Ranveersingh were in the truck which was ahead of all. According to the Public Prosecutor this is also evident that it was truck No. 5052 from which the gun was fired and therefore, the learned Judge has rightly held persons sitting in both the trucks liable for the injury caused to Dhula, Constable while he was discharging his duty. 7. The pertinent question in the case is as to from which truck the gun was fired & whether prosecution could satisfactorily prove that the three appellants were there in the trucks. The prosecution case is that it was from the second truck that somebody fired the gun. According to Amarsingh (PW. 2) this second truck was RSQ 5052. This witness admitted that he could not identify any person sitting in any of the trucks. Amarsingh (PW. 2) has stated about truck No. DHG 922 being the first one and RSQ 5052 being the second one. According to the witness it was Indersingh who was sitting there in the cabin of truck No. RSQ 5052. The witness could not recollect whether Indersingh appellant was driving the truck or was simply sitting inside it Kishanlal (PW. Amarsingh (PW. 2) has stated about truck No. DHG 922 being the first one and RSQ 5052 being the second one. According to the witness it was Indersingh who was sitting there in the cabin of truck No. RSQ 5052. The witness could not recollect whether Indersingh appellant was driving the truck or was simply sitting inside it Kishanlal (PW. 3) S.H.O. has not stated about any of the appellants sitting in the truck rather has stated that somebody sitting in the truck going in the middle had fired the gun. Padma (PW. 4) another constable accompanying the raid party has stated that somebody sitting in the third truck had fired the shot at Dhula. It is relevant to note, that only one witness Kamla Shankar has been put up at the identification parade. He had identified the three appellants at the parade but from the evidence it is not evident as to whether he was able to point out a person being in a particular truck. Kamla Shankar has stated that he could know the names of Ramkaran, Ranveersingh and Indersingh after the identification was over. According to this witness Ramkaran and Ranveersingh were in the first truck and Indersingh in the second one. If it was so, then name of these could be held responsible for firing the gun in view of the statement of Padma (PW. 4) that some person sitting in the third truck had fired the gun. Apart from it, the statement of B.N. Sarrya (PW. 7) the Traffic-Incharge, Ahmedabad falsifies the statement of Kamla Shankar that it was Indersingh who was driving the truck No. RSQ 5052. According to that witness truck No. 3134 was driven by Indersingh. This is noteworthy that no pistol has been recovered from any of the appellants. 8. In this view of the matter, looking to that vague evidence of the prosecution witness, I find myself unable to agree with the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Judge and find no justification in the conviction of any of the appellants for any offences. 9. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentences awarded to the appellants are set aside and they are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. They are all on bail and need not surrender to it. Their bail bonds stand discharged.Appeal Allowed. *******