S. K. SETH, J. ( 1 ) THE Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur vide his judgment dated 31. 12. 1979 convicted accused Kalicharan and Jamuna tinder section 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for three years. He further convicted both the accused under section 25 (1) (a) of the Arms Act and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for one year. It was ordered by him that the sentences awarded to the two accused would run concurrently. It is against their above said convictions and sentences that the two accused have filed the present appeal in this Court. ( 2 ) COMPLAINANT Brajmohan (P. W. 16) as also the accused were residents of village Talgaon in Chhatarpur district. The incident took place on 27. 7. 1978 at about 8. 45 P. M. P. W. 16 Brajmohan had gone to Chhatarpur in connection with some criminal case. A few minutes before the incident, he had got down from a bus at village Lalpur and from there started walking on foot to his village. Apart from certain other persons, C. W. 1 Nilkanth Kurmi and C. W. 2 Lakbanlal had also been with him. He had covered only a small distance from the bus-stop when from behind the beshram trees situated by the side of the foot-path he was fired at thrice and received gun-shot injuries described in Ex. P-i. From the manner in which the gunshots were fired at him, and the nature of injuries received by him as a result of the said shots, there could be little doubt that whosoever had fired the said shots intended to cause the death of Brajrnohan. The only question arising for consideration in the case was with regard to the identity of the persons who had fired the said gunshots at him. ( 3 ) IT was clear from the evidence produced in the case that complainant Brajmohan and the accused belonged to rival political parties. It was also clear that over certain election that had taken place in the village in the recent past there existed bad-blood between the members of the two parties. ( 3 ) IT was clear from the evidence produced in the case that complainant Brajmohan and the accused belonged to rival political parties. It was also clear that over certain election that had taken place in the village in the recent past there existed bad-blood between the members of the two parties. Again, what was greatly significant was that the complainant had known the accused from before and there was no question of his failing to identify them in case he was successful in having a glimpse of them at the time of the incident. ( 4 ) IT is from the above said point of view that the version of the incident narrated by P. W. 16 Brajmohan in dehati nalishi Ex. P-13 recorded at about 2. 30 in the night became greatly significant. Al; per the said version, after the three shots had been fired at him, he and his companions switched on their torches and saw three persons running away from behind the beshram trees. It was not stated as to who those three reasons were. On the other hand, it was stated that in case he and his companions saw the persons again, they would be in a position to identify them-suggesting that they were not persons who had been known to him and his companions from before. ( 5 ) EX. P-14 was a letter that was written by P. W. 16 Brajrnohan to the Superintendent of Police, Chhatarpur on 16. 9. 1978 i e. after more than one and half months of the incident. It is interesting to note that in the said letter he tried to suggest that he could not disclose the names of the persons who had fired the gun-shots at him in the dehati nalishi due to his physical condition and that as he was now recovered from the said condition he was in a position to disclose the names of the said persons. But, very strangely, no names were disclosed even in the said letter. There was also no material on the record to indicate that any further statement of his was recorded by the police on the said date or soon thereafter. ( 6 ) AMONGST the companions of P. W. 16 Brajrnohan, only C. W. 1 Nilkanth and C. W. 2 Lakhanlal were examined in the case. There was also no material on the record to indicate that any further statement of his was recorded by the police on the said date or soon thereafter. ( 6 ) AMONGST the companions of P. W. 16 Brajrnohan, only C. W. 1 Nilkanth and C. W. 2 Lakhanlal were examined in the case. These two witnesses had also known the accused from before. It was admitted by them in their evidence that they could not see the culprits properly and were- not in a position to identify them at the time of the incident. Their evidence was also, therefore of no assistance in determining the identity of the persons who had fired the gun-shots at P. W. 16 Brajmohan. ( 7 ) THE second type of evidence produced by the prosecution against the accused was of a indirect nature and consisted of the testimony of P. W. 7 Deendayal, P. W. 8 Banmali and P. W. 9 Loknath. It is noteworthy that the two accused were taken into custody in the middle of October 1978. It was stated that in consequence of information given by them on 16. 10. I 978 a gun and a country made pistol were recovered and seized by the police from their houses. It was more or less about the same time that the statements of the above said witnesses namely P. W. 7 Deendayal, P. W. 8 Banmali and P. W. 9 Loknath were recorded by the police. ( 8 ) NOW, the evidence of P. W. 7 Deendayal was to the effect that after hearing the sound of three gun-shots, he, had seen accused Kalicharan, approver Tijwa (P. W. 1), accused Jamuna and acquitted accused Halla and Brij Behari. Accused Kalicharan was armed with a gun. The evidence of P. W, 8 Banmali was to the effect that he had seen the above said five persons going from the village side towards Lalpur. Kalicharan and Tijwa were armed with guns and accused Jamuna was armed with a danda. Acquitted accused Halla and Brij Babari were empty-banded. Accused Kalicharan was armed with a gun. The evidence of P. W, 8 Banmali was to the effect that he had seen the above said five persons going from the village side towards Lalpur. Kalicharan and Tijwa were armed with guns and accused Jamuna was armed with a danda. Acquitted accused Halla and Brij Babari were empty-banded. The evidence of P. W. 9 Loknath was to the effect that a few hours prior to the time of the incident accused Kalicharan and approver Tijwa had made an enquiry from him as to where P. W 16 Brajmohan went and when would be return and that he had informed them that Brajmohan went to Chhatarpur in connection with some case and would be returning by Lalpur bus. ( 9 ) THERE was no explanation worth the name as to why the abovesaid three witnesses sat quiet over what they were alleged to have seen for more than one and half months and what made them to make their statements to the police for the first time after such a long lapse of time. It was apparent that their evidence was certainly. , not of such a nature as could provide any corroboration to the case set up by the prosecution against the accused. A reference to the third type of evidence produced in the case has already been made above. It was stated that in consequence of information given by them to the police on 16-10-78 vide memoranda Ext. P-S and P-7, a double barrel gun and a country made pistol were recovered by the Tpolice from the houses of the two accused and were seized vide seizure memo. Exs. P-6 and P-8. But, then, the opinion of the Ballistic Expert was of an inconclusive nature and fell short of establishing that the said firearms were the weapons of offence. ( 10 ) AFTER excluding the above said evidence, the only evidence that still survived against the two accused was that of approver Tijwa (P. W. 1 ). It is interesting to note that this person was said to have been arrested in village Talgaon itself after the police had already put up the challan against accused-appellants Kalicharan and Jamna and acquitted accused Halla and Brij Behari. It was not understandable as to how when as per the earliest version of the incident contained in dehati nalishi Ex. It is interesting to note that this person was said to have been arrested in village Talgaon itself after the police had already put up the challan against accused-appellants Kalicharan and Jamna and acquitted accused Halla and Brij Behari. It was not understandable as to how when as per the earliest version of the incident contained in dehati nalishi Ex. P-13 there was a clear statement to the effect that the number of culprits was only three and it was the three culprits who were seen running away from the place of occurrence, how the number of culprits came to be increased to five with the passage of time. The said circumstance itself made it doubtful whether approver Tijwa (P. W. 1) was in fact a co-accused as alleged by him or whether his alleged complicity in the commission of the crime was set up only with a view to provide evidence against the remaining accused. From a perusal of the evidence of this witness, this Court is not satisfied about the reliability of the said witness. Moreover, there was no sufficient corroboration worth the name to the evidence of the said witness forth-coming from the other evidence produced in the case. ( 11 ) THE above said being the total evidence against the two accused, it is difficult to sustain their conviction under section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. As far as their conviction under section 25 (1) (a) of the Arms Act is concerned, it has come in the evidence that accused Kalicharan's father possessed a licence in respect of the gun, that was said to have been recovered and seized in consequence of information given by the said accused. Moreover, several other persons, apart from the two accused, lived in the houses from where the fire-arms in question were said to have been recovered and seized and it was not possible to conclude that it was the two accused who had been in possessiont of the said fire-arms within the meaning of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 25 of the Arms Act. It is difficult to sustain their conviction under section 25 (1) (a) of the Arms Act also. ( 12 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed. The convictions and sentences of the accused-appellants are set aside and they are acquitted. Appeal allowed. .