S. AWASTHY, J. ( 1 ) APPELLANT No. 1 has challenged his conviction under section 302, I. P. C. as well as under sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act and consequent sentence of imprisonment for life, rigorous imprisonment for one year and further rigorous imprisonment for one year, respectively, while the appellants 2 to 4 have challenged their conviction under section 302/120-B, I. P. C. and consequent sentence of imprisonment for life in Sessions Trial No. 17 of 19152, decided on 24/3/1983 by Shri V B. Shrivastava, Additional Sessions Judge, Satna. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case is that on 9-9-1981 in village Chaura or Semariya or Teekar, on, Deonarayan alias Chitani died because of gun shot injury from the gun which was possession by appellant No. 1 Jattha. It is the case of the prosecution that Jattha conspired with other appellants and intentionally shot Deonarayan with his gun. ( 3 ) THE prosecution has alleged that the deceased used to irrigate his field from Jhala Nala by means of his pumping set. Due to this act of the deceased, Mahmood (appellant No. 2) was deprived of the water which he was normally getting for irrigating his field. This was the reason that appellant No. 2 bore a grudge against the deceased. He conspired with the other appellants and promised to pay Rs. 10, 000/- to the appellant No. 1 if he would shoot Deonarayan dead. A plan was made by which the deceased was taken by appellant No. 1 for Shikar and there, on getting an opportunity, the appellant No. 1 shot him dead. ( 4 ) SO far as the evidence of conspiracy is concerned, the prosecution has examined P. W. 8 Jagannath, P. W. 12 Narbada, P. W. 13 Baijnath and P. W. 15 Surendra Prasad. All these witnesses are chance witnesses and they have merely stated that they over-heard the appellants conspiring to kill Deonarayan. The entire evidence has been perused by us in this regard and we are not satisfied that such evidence is reliable and sufficient to hold the alleged conspiracy proved. We, therefore, hold that the charge of conspiracy is not proved against the appellants and they are entitled to acquittal under section 302/120- B, I. P. C. We are supported in our view by the decision of the Supreme Court in Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab. We, therefore, hold that the charge of conspiracy is not proved against the appellants and they are entitled to acquittal under section 302/120- B, I. P. C. We are supported in our view by the decision of the Supreme Court in Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab. ( 5 ) THE argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that no case is made out against the appellant No. 1 Jattha as the gun fired off accidentally and unfortunately the bullet struck the deceased. His argument is that it was merely an accident and was not a case of intentional killing. The first-information report (Ex. P-1) was lodged by P. W. 1 Ramniwas. In the first-information-report, it was mentioned that the deceased was going ahead of the appellant No. 1 for playing Shikar and the sound of gun fire was beard by him. The wife of deceased Deonarayan, viz. , Manjulata (P. W. 10) informed him that she bad beard a fire from the direction they bad gone. If P. W. 10 Manjulata would have seen the appellant No. 1 firing the gun, she would have told this witness (P. W. 1 Ramniwas) that the appellant No. 1 fired the gun aiming at her husband. It is suggested that P. W. 10 Manjulata had not seen the occurrence and, later on, tried to become an eye-witness. Manjulata (P. W. 10) bad stated that she had seen the incident herself as she was watching them going towards that direction. The learned counsel read out the statement of appellant No. 1 and argued that there not being any eye-witnesses to how the incident bad taken place, the statement of appellant No. 1 could be accepted unless the plea is found to be absolutely absurd. ( 6 ) FROM Ex. P-I, it is clear that Ramniwas Kotwar (P. W. 1), Raghunath Kalar, Chakodi Lodh and Manjulata did not take the sound of the fire as a journal shooting of the hare. They suspected some foul play. That is why Manjulata (P. W. 10) became apprehensive and told Ramniwas (P. W. 1) about the said sound of the fire. In her statement as P. W. 10, she had given a graphic picture of the incident. They suspected some foul play. That is why Manjulata (P. W. 10) became apprehensive and told Ramniwas (P. W. 1) about the said sound of the fire. In her statement as P. W. 10, she had given a graphic picture of the incident. In para 15 of her cross-examination, it bas been made clear that she bad stated to the police the very next day of the incident that she bad seen the appellant No. 1 firing at her husband. It is quite natural for a woman that after having seen such an incident, she would get nervous and she would prefer people to rush to the place of incident than narrating the entire incident to them in detail. Ex. P-is is the map of the spot dated 10. 9-1981 from which it is clear that P. W. 10 Manjulata would have seen the incident at a distance of 100 yards from point No. 5 where she was standing when the gun was fired off. Thus, the narration in the first-information-report assigned to P. W. 10 Manjulata would not, in any manner, discredit her testimony. ( 7 ) APART from this, it is not disputed before us that Deonarayan died because of the shot from the gun which the appellant No. 1 was bolding. It is for the appellant No. 1 to explain as to how his gun fired off. The explanation given by him is not only improbable but is absolutely absurd. A cock and bull story has been invented which does not sound to reason. ( 8 ) DR. S. C. Khare (P. W. 14) performed the autopsy on the dead body of Deonarayan and sound the following injuries on his person vide Ex. P-5:- Four gun shot wounds of entry present on right side of back app. 5 cm. right of mid-line at the level of 4 below inferior angle of scapula and at the level of 10th and 11th thoracic spine. Medial three wounds are 1 cm. in diameter and bruising the margins. Lateral most wound is 3/4 cm. in diameter. Margins are inverted. No blackening of surrounding skin seen. Dark coloured blood coming from the wounds. Wounds are rounded in shape and situated in slightly curved line in a distance of 3/4 cm. from nearest wounds. Direction of wounds is forward upward and medially. There is blackening of skin about 6 cm. x 6 cm. in diameter. Margins are inverted. No blackening of surrounding skin seen. Dark coloured blood coming from the wounds. Wounds are rounded in shape and situated in slightly curved line in a distance of 3/4 cm. from nearest wounds. Direction of wounds is forward upward and medially. There is blackening of skin about 6 cm. x 6 cm. in epigastria region. On dissection, there is extravasations of blood in anterior abdominal wall and lower part of chin. All the four shots were recovered from anterior abdominal wall. The cause of death was shock due to injury to linear and right kidneys and haemorrhage due to gun shot wounds. ( 9 ) THE Ballistic Expert has opined, vide Ex. P-17 that the gun was shot from a distance of nine feet. The appellant No. 1, in his statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has stated that he was keeping the gun on his shoulder. The deceased ahead of him, had descended from the embankment. The appellant No. 1, in his attempt to get down, slipped from there and the gun went off hitting the deceased in his back. The trigger pull was 12 Lbs. We are unable to imagine a situation in which the pellet would have struck the deceased in the manner as stated by the appellant No. 1. ( 10 ) EVEN if we were to hold that P. W. 10 Manjulata had not seen the incident, the circumstances of the case prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant No. 1 intentionally fired the gun at the deceased Deonarayan. His appeal must, therefore, be dismissed. ( 11 ) NO other point has been pressed before us. ( 12 ) WE, therefore, allow the appeal of appellants 2 to 4, but dismiss the appeal of appellant No. 1. Let appellant No. 1 be informed with the result of this appeal through the Superintendent, Central Jail, Rewa. Appellants 2 to 4 are already on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged. Order accordingly. .