S. K. SETH, J. ( 1 ) THE Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur vide his judgment dated 10-9-1980 passed in Sessions Trial No. 200 of 1976 convicted accused-appellant Umadutt Kaushik under Sections 307 and 344 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 200/- for the two offences. It was ordered by him that the two substantive sentences of imprisonment awarded to the accused-appellant would run concurrently. It was also ordered by him that in case of default in payment of fine amounts the accused-appellant would have to undergo further imprisonment as mentioned in the judgment. This appeal by the accused-appellant is filed against his abovesaid convictions and sentences. ( 2 ) THE accused-appellant was a resident of village Mahoba in Chhatarpur district. Previously he had been working as a teacher. However, later on, he became an Advocate and started practising law. Acquitted accused Ramdutt was elder brother of the accused appellant and worked as a Vaidya in the village. Acquitted accused Fulan Dulaiya was the mother of the two accused persons. The victim in connection with the offences alleged against the three accused persons was Savitri (P. W. 2 ). She had been married to the accused-appellant round about the year 1965. Nathuram (P. W. 14) was the father of Savitridevi. Jankidevi was her mother. Vishvakant (P. W. 9) was her brother. Dwarka Prasad (P. W. 1) was her uncle. Kamta Prasad was her maternal uncle. Nathuram and Dwarka Prasad were residents of village Ajner of district Hamirpur in Uttar Pradesh. Jageshwar Prasad (P. W. 19) was Kamta Prasads son and thus her cousin. Jageshwar Prasad was in the Uttar Pradesh police service and was working as a constable at Mowranipur at the relevant time. ( 3 ) THE case against the accused-appellant and the two acquitted accused persons was that In the incident that took place on the night intervening 31st March and 1st April, 1975 when Savitridevi was residing in their house in village Mahoba district Chhatarpur, the accused-appellant attempted to commit murder of Savitri devi by firing a gun shot with a 12 bore gun at her and accused Ramdutt and Fulan Dulaiya rendered assistance to accused appellant Umadutt in making the said attempt. The further case against the three accused persons was that they wrongfully confined Savitri devi for about 10 days or more commencing from the time mentioned above. ( 4 ) IT would be useful to understand first the manner in which the first information report (Ex. P. 16) about the incident came to be lodged at Now gong police station after about 10 days of its occurrence on 10-4-1975 at 4 P. M. The said report was based on a written complaint dated 9-4-1975 addressed to Superintendent of Police, Chhatarpur and received at the police- station in question from Circle Inspector of the area concerned. The substance of the written complaint was as follows: Savitri devi was cousin sister of the complainant and married to accused-appellant Umadutt Kaushik of village Mahoba a few years back. In December, 1974, accused-appellant Umadutt had married another woman named Girja devi of village Londi of district Chhatarpur. After the said second marriage of accused-appellant, the complainant had gone to bring back his sister from Mahoba, but the said accused-appellant and his brother Ramdutt did not send her and also did not allow him to meet her. After his second mairrage, accused-appellant Umadutt wanted to any how get rid of Savitridevi. For the said purpose, Umadutt, his brother Ramdutt and mother Fulan Dulaiya beat Savitridevi on several occasions. At last, on the night intervening 31st March and 1st April, 1975 at about 12 in the mid-night accused-appellant Umadutt fired a gun shot with his 12 bore gun at Savitridevi with a view to kill her. As a result of the said shot, Savitridevi received injuries from pallets hitting her chest and other parts of her body. On hearing the gun shot, the villagers rushed to the house. However, Umadutt and his brother Ramdutt removed Savitri Devi in a wounded condition to some unknown place on the pretext whereabouts of Savitri Devi were not known. The complainant had gone to make a report about the incident to the Station House Officer at Nowgong Police Station, but the Station House Officer refused to record his report. Thereafter, the complainant met the Circle Inspector of the area concerned. He too did not do anything till the night of 8-4-1975. It was while the complainant was lodging the written complaint in quest ion dated 9-4-1975 addressed to the Superintendent of Police. Thereafter, the complainant met the Circle Inspector of the area concerned. He too did not do anything till the night of 8-4-1975. It was while the complainant was lodging the written complaint in quest ion dated 9-4-1975 addressed to the Superintendent of Police. ( 5 ) THE complainant, i. e. Jageshwar Prasad (P. W. 19) admitted in his evidence in the Court that he did not know anything about the incident personally. According to him, his uncle Dwarka Prasad (P. W. I) had sent a bus conductor to him at Mowranipur and it was this bus conductor who told him about the incident. How did this Dwarka Prasad came to know about the incident? According to him, his niece Savitridevi had been sent from Ajmer to Mahoba a few months before the incident. At that time, his nephew Vishvakant (P. W. 9) had informed him on his return that accused-appellant Umadutt was thinking of marrying for the second time and the woman whom he proposed to marry was Girjadevi of village Londi. It was after one or two months of Vishvakant having given the aforesaid information to him that he again came and informed him that Savitridevi had suffered a gun shot wound. Now, did this Vishvakant knew anything about the incident personally? No, there again we meet a dead end. ( 6 ) THIS Vishvakant (P. W. 9) was said to be a student in some educational institution at Chhatarpur at the relevant time. According to him, he had come to know about the incident from some of his class fellows whose names he was unable to tell. But then how could the investigating agency allow its case to suffer from any infirmity in the said regard. It did find a student named Suresh Kumar (P. W. 16) who was resident of village Mahoba and was a student of B. A. (Final) in the Maharaja College at Chhatarpur at the relevant time to depose about the incident. This witness claimed to be an eyewitness to the incident. His police case diary statement was recorded on 29-1-1978, i. e. after more than 2 years of the incident. It was interesting what this witness had to say about the manner in which incident occurred. The witness was at that time at his house in village Mahoba. This witness claimed to be an eyewitness to the incident. His police case diary statement was recorded on 29-1-1978, i. e. after more than 2 years of the incident. It was interesting what this witness had to say about the manner in which incident occurred. The witness was at that time at his house in village Mahoba. In the afternoon, he had gone to take medicine from acquitted accused Ramdutt who was a Vaidha. While acquitted accused Ramdutt was preparing the medicine for him in the Dawakhana, a sound of gun shot was suddenly heard from inside the house. On hearing the said shot, both acquitted accused Ramdutt and this witness rushed inside the house. When this witness reached the Atari of the house, he saw Savitridevi lying on the floor. There was blood coming out of her chest. Savitridevi was shouting that Kalloos Papa (i. e. the accused-appellant) had shot her. At that time, accused-appellant Umadutt was standing in the Atari and there was a 12 bore gun in his hand. The said accused- appellant asked this witness to go away from the house and accordingly he went away from there. In the Atari, apart from accused-appellant Umadutt, his mother Fulan Dulaiya had also been present. ( 7 ) THUS, if at all, there had been any direct source of whatever information was contained in first information report Ex. P. 16, which was recorded on the basis of written complaint dated 9-4-1975 Ex. P. 15 made by Jageshwar Prasad, the same, according to the case of the prosecution, appeared to be this Suresh Kumar (P. W. 16 ). But, then, what wonderful authenticity this particular direct source did have? While according to this direct source, the alleged shooting incident had taken place at about 1 or 1-30 in the after noon, in the first information report the time of the said incident shifted to 12 in the midnight. The credentials of this alleged direct source were also quite interesting. It was apparent from the cross examination of this witness that one Brijgopal Chaturvedi, Advocate of Chhatarpur was his uncle and yet he tried to deliberately hid the said fact by going to the length of saying that he did now know whether his father had any brothers and what were their name. It was apparent from the cross examination of this witness that one Brijgopal Chaturvedi, Advocate of Chhatarpur was his uncle and yet he tried to deliberately hid the said fact by going to the length of saying that he did now know whether his father had any brothers and what were their name. He had to admit that there had been a criminal case under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in initiated by the police in which he, Brijgopal Chaturvedi and other members of his family were arrayed on one side and accused-appellant Umadutt and his brother Ramdutt were arrayed on the other side. He had also to admit that during all this period of more than two years from the date of the incident till his case diary statement Ex. D. 15 was recorded by the police, he did not tell this fact of his having witnessed the shooting incident to any one. He had to further admit that even in to case diary statement of his recorded after a period of more than two years there was no mention of the fact of his gone to the atari of the house and seen Savitridevi lying on the floor at of accused-appellant Umadutt standing in the said atari with a 12 bore gun in his hands. ( 8 ) THE net result of the above said discussion is that from the manner and in the circumstances in which first information report Ex. P. 16 about the alleged shooting incident came to be recorded on the basis of written complaint Ex. P. 15 dated 9- 5-1975 made by Jageshwar Prasad it was clear that the entire edifice of the prosecution case in so far as it drew strength from the said written complaint was built on false premises. In the circumstances in order to find out whether the prosecution was successful in proving its case against the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt, we have to ignore completely the version contained in the said written complaint and look else where for finding out the necessary material for doing so. ( 9 ) THAT takes us examination of the case from the point of view of Savitridevi herself. ( 9 ) THAT takes us examination of the case from the point of view of Savitridevi herself. It was clear from the material on the record of the case that on the receipt of the complaint dated 9-4-1975 at police-station Now gong, a case under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code had been registered and the investigation in connection with the same commenced. It was also clear that Savitridevi was a free person at least by 10-4-1975 when the Circle Inspector of the area concerned had referred her for medical examination to the Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Nowgong vide requisition Ex. C-i and was examined in pursuance of the said requisition by Dr. Arvind Prakash Verma (C. W. 1) at the said hospital. The Circle Inspector (P. W. 8) stated on oath that after the medical examination of Savitridevi she had been sent along with a constable to the Court of Judicial Magistrate at Nowgong for recording of her statement under Section 194 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The statement of Savitridevi was recorded by the Magistrate on 16-4-1975 and the same was Ex. D. 5. If any statements of Savitridevi were recorded by the police before 16-4-1975, the same were not produced in the case. As the order sheet dated 1-3-1979 of the trial Court would show. a demand had been made on behalf of the accused persons for copies of the case diary statements of Savitridevi of that period being supplied to them and it was given out on behalf of the prosecution that the concerned case diary did not contain any such statements. In the circumstances, it is to be accepted that according to the prosecution the first statement made by Savitridevi as regards the alleged shooting incident was Ex. D. 5. In her said statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it was stated by Savitridevi that it was while she was trying to lit the stove at about 12 in the noon of 31-3-1975 that she caught fire and got burns in her chest. In her evidence in the Court, she was confronted with her said statement and the explanation given by her was that at the said time she was under the influence of accused persons and it was for that reason that she made the said statement. In her evidence in the Court, she was confronted with her said statement and the explanation given by her was that at the said time she was under the influence of accused persons and it was for that reason that she made the said statement. ( 10 ) ACCORDING to Savitridevi, her husband had left her for good at her fathers house in Ajner in May 1975 and thereafter did not come to take her back to Mahoba. Even assuming the Savitridevi had been under the influence of the accused persons before, it is clear that at least from May, 1975 there was no such influence working on her mind. Yet, surprisingly, though some of the prosecution witnesses tried to suggest that she had informed them about the alleged shooting incident, there was nothing reflected about the same in contemporaneous documents. Savitridevi made an application for grant of maintenance to her under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate at Nowgong on 7-5-1976 (Ex. D. 3 ). Though, there was a vague allegation made in the said application as regards she having been treated cruelly by her in-laws, there was absolutely no mention about any shooting incident having taken place on 31-3- 1975 or at any other time. It was for the first time in her statement Ex. D. 6 made in the 125 case on 4-7-1977 that she spoke about the shooting incident having taken place on 31-3-1975. During all this period from May 1975 to July 1977, though the father, uncle and other relations of Savitridevi had allegedly come to know about the said shooting incident from her, there was absolutely no statement about the said fact made by anyone of them to anyone. After July, 1977, on the investigation having been taken up anew by the C. I. D. , the case diary statement (Ex. D. 10) of Savitridevi was recorded on 25-1-1978 i. e. after more than 2 1/2 years of the incident. After July, 1977, on the investigation having been taken up anew by the C. I. D. , the case diary statement (Ex. D. 10) of Savitridevi was recorded on 25-1-1978 i. e. after more than 2 1/2 years of the incident. ( 11 ) THE substance of what has been stated above is that the evidence of Suresh Kumar (P. W. 16) who was alleged to have witnessed the incident was wholly unreliable and untrustworthy and as far as only other eye-witness account of the said incident by Savitridevi is concerned, even if the evidence of Savitridevi had any reliability, the said reliability was not such that it could be acted upon in the absence of some very strong corroboration from an independent source. It is the said matter relating to corroboration that takes us to the consideration of the medical evidence produced in the case. ( 12 ) AS already stated above, the first Doctor who had examined Savitridevi after the alleged shooting incident was Dr. Arvind Prakesh Verma (P. W. 1 ). It was surprising that though the said witness had been listed in the list of prosecution witnesses and also appeared in the Court in pursuance of the summons served on him, the Prosecutor informed the Court that he did not wish to examine the said witness as his report was adverse to the prosecution. The evidence of the said witness as the first Doctor who had examined Savitridevi was greatly relevant and the Court acted rightly in proceeding to examine the said witness as a court witness. It was stated as per the requisition received from the police that Dr Verma had examined Savitridevi on 10-4-1975 at 11-45 A. M. He found that there were superficial burns extending from lower part of chin to left breast and right side of sternal end and the ulcers were in the process of healing and there was pus collection in some of the wounds. The wounds were inter-mingled and were over-lapping each other. In his opinion, the nature of injuries was simple and the injuries might have been caused by fire. It is pertinent to note that a specific query had been made from the Doctor as to whether the injuries had been due to any gun shot. On the said point, the opinion of Dr. In his opinion, the nature of injuries was simple and the injuries might have been caused by fire. It is pertinent to note that a specific query had been made from the Doctor as to whether the injuries had been due to any gun shot. On the said point, the opinion of Dr. Verma was since there was no blackening of the skin and no tattooing and there was no foreign body like lead pellets etc. in the wound, the injuries could not have been caused by a gun shot. The report of Dr. Verma was Ex. C-2. ( 13 ) AGAIN, at the instance of the investigating agency, Savitridevi was next examined by Dr. Mahendra Prasad (P. W. 4), Head of the Department of Surgery, Medical College, Rewa on 24-3-1976. According to him, he noticed faint pigmentations and scars in the pectoral region. In his opinion, the said pigmentations and scars revealed that there had been some injury caused to the victim, but since all the injury marks were healed up and were of almost one years duration, it was not possible to give any definite opinion about the type of initial injury. He, therefore, referred the case for further opinion to Dr. (Mrs) Nigam (P. W. 3), Lecturer in Forensic Medicine, Medical College, Rewa. ( 14 ) DR. (Mrs.) Nigam (P. W. 3) examined Savitridevi on 25-3-1976. She too noticed faint scars and pigmentations in the pectoral region. She was of the opinion that there had been some injury which appeared to be caused by gun shot, but since there was no evidence of tatooing or scorching of skin and the injury marks were one year old duration, healed and scar formed, no definite opinion could be given about the initial injury. ( 15 ) THEREAFTER, the case referred to Dr. Heeresh Chandra (P. W. 17), Professor of Forensic Medicine, Medical College/bhopal. Dr. Heeresh Chandra was said to have examined Savitridevi on 21-4-1976. She was said to have been accompanied by her father Nathuram (P. W. 14 ). It is not necessary to refer to the opinion of Dr. Heeresh Chandra in detail. It is sufficient to say that he too noted the pigmentations and scars over the area in question of Savitridevi. According to Dr. She was said to have been accompanied by her father Nathuram (P. W. 14 ). It is not necessary to refer to the opinion of Dr. Heeresh Chandra in detail. It is sufficient to say that he too noted the pigmentations and scars over the area in question of Savitridevi. According to Dr. Heeresh Chandra, a tissue was later on taken out from the pigmented and scarred area in the Surgery Department of M. G. M. College on 21-4- 1976 itself and the same was examined by him. The said tissue showed deposits of dark pigmented material which had been drawn in the inner tissue via lymphatic to a certain distance in the terms. In his opinion, this impregnation of dark pigmented material would require considerable velocity for such impregnation. There was no inflammation, suggestive of impregnated material being sterlised and that such situation meets squarely to the history of blank round fire from a firearm from a distance unable to produce scorching but within the range of travel of unburnt and burnt gun-powder. His final opinion was that it appeared that the injuries had been caused by the residue of the blank cartridge at the particular region. The report of Dr. Heeresh Chandra was Ex. p. 13. ( 16 ) THE submission of the learned counsel for the accused-appellant in respect of the medical evidence produced by the prosecution in the case and as summarised above is that the evidence and opinion of the first Doctor who had an opportunity to examine Savitridevi only a few days after the incident was more reliable and trustworthy than that of other Doctors who examined Savitridevi after a long lapse of time and whose opinion even when viewed with great esteem led at best only to a guess and nothing beyond it. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that inasmuch as the first Doctor who had examined Savitridevi soon after the incident accepted the possibility of the injuries to Savitridevi having been caused by fire and ruled out the possibility of the same having been caused by a gun shot, the medical evidence provided absolutely no basis to connect the accused-appellant with the offence alleged against him. ( 17 ) WITH regard to the opinion expressed by Dr. Heeresh Chandra it is submitted by the learned counsel for the accused- appellant that the same suffered from a serious defect. ( 17 ) WITH regard to the opinion expressed by Dr. Heeresh Chandra it is submitted by the learned counsel for the accused- appellant that the same suffered from a serious defect. The opinion of Dr. Heeresh Chandra was based on examination of a tissue that was said to have been taken out from the pigmented and scarred area in the Surgery Department of MG. M. College on 21-4-1976. Dr. Heeresh Chandra had not taken out the said tissue himself. According to him, the same had been taken out by some surgeon whose name he did not remember. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the prosecution having failed to establish that the tissue regarding which Dr. Heeresh Chandra expressed his opinion had been taken out from Savitridevi, the opinion of Dr. Heeresh Chandra was rendered valueless. Even otherwise, according to the learned counsel, the final opinion of Dr. Heeresh Chandra was that it appeared that the injuries had been caused by the residue of the blank cartridge on the particular region The said opinion suggested only a possibility and was not capable of providing any such corroboration as the evidence of Savitridevi needed as already pointed out above. 18. In the opinion of this Court, the abovesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant, deserve to be accepted. The medical evidence-produced in the case did not provide any such corroboration to the evidence of Savitridevi on the basis of which it could be held that the prosecution succeeded in proving its case against the accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt. There was also no other evidence produced in the case which could provide such a corroboration. ( 18 ) FOR the reasons stated above, differing from the findings reached by the Additional Sessions Judge, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to establish its case against the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused-appellant deserved to be acquitted. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The convictions and sentences of the accused-appellant are set aside and he is acquitted. Fine amounts, if paid, shall be refunded to him. Appeal allowed. .