JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh dated January 11, 1979 by which he has convicted the accused-appellant under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 months. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus. 2. On August 1, 1977, at about 11 p.m. the injured-informant Brijlal (PW 2) was sleeping in his house along with his father Nandram (PW 3) and brother Hotram situated at Manak Tibi (P.S. Tibi) (Sri Ganganagar). The accused-appellant Jagdish had enmity with him since long. He came there and started abusing him. When Nandram (PW 3) resented, he proclaimed that he would kill them. He fired a shot from his pistol. Its pellets caused injuries on his hand. On his hue and cry, Dhanram, Sheolal, Hamir Singh and several other villagers came there. FIR Ex.P 2 was lodged in the Police Station, Tibi (Sri Ganganagar) at 8.15 a m on August 2. 1977. A case under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 27, Arms Act were framed against the accused. He did not plead guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined five witnesses produced and proved 15 documents. The accused denied the prosecution story. He disclosed in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC that he is a resident of village Kalwana, he has neither any land nor any property in Manak Tibi and he has falsely been implicated in this case. He did not produce any evidence in his defence. After hearing the parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as said above. 3. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the informant-injured Brijlal (PW 2) has not at all supported the prosecution case in his cross-examination and the remaining eye-witnesses namely, Nand Ram (PW 3) (father of the injured Brij Lal (PW 2) Sheo Lal (PW 4) have not said any thing connecting the accused with the incident in their statements. He further contended that the learned trial court has convicted the accused-appellant solely on the basis of the facts disclosed in the examination-in-chief by Brij Lal (PW 2), he was not a witness of sterling worth, two views were possible from his statement, one. He further contended that the learned trial court has convicted the accused-appellant solely on the basis of the facts disclosed in the examination-in-chief by Brij Lal (PW 2), he was not a witness of sterling worth, two views were possible from his statement, one. in favour of the prosecution and other in favour of the accused and the learned trial court should have adopted the view which was in favour of the accused-appellant. He relied upon Shared v. State of Maharashtra [ AIR 1984 SC 1622 ], Sheo Nandan Paswan v. State of Bihar [1982 SCC (Criminal) 224] and Ramchander v. State of Haryana [1982 Cr.LJ 609 (CS)] . 4. In reply, the learned Public Prosecutor tried his best to support the judgment under appeal. 5. Admittedly, the prosecution has examined informant Brijlal (PW 2) his father Nandram (PW 3) and his neighbour Sheolal (PW 4) as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Nandram (PW 3) and Sheolal (PW 4) have not at all connected the accused-appellant with the firing. Both of them have deposed that some-body fired shot at Brijlal (PW 2). But none of them has disclosed as to who fired-shots. The injured Brijlal (PW 2) has said in his examination-in-chief that the accused fired shot from his country made gun and in his cross-examination, he has disclosed that he could not identify the assailant as it was dark night, the assailant was at a distance of about 8-10 pounds from him and his father Nandram disclosed the name of the accused as his assailant. The question for consideration, is whether the conviction of the accused-appellant can be sustained on the basis of such a solitary statement of Brijlal (PW 2). It is clear from his statement that no effort was made by the. Addl. Public Prosecutor to re-examine him for the reconciliation of his two contradictory statements one given in the examination-in-chief and other in the cross examination. If the Additional Public Prosecutor would have reexamined him after his said cross-examination, the position would have been quite clear. His statement given in examination-in-chief is not fully corroborated by his FIR Ex P/l wherein he disclosed that his father Nandram (PW 3) and neighbour Sheolal (PW 4) also saw the accused-appellant firing his pistol upon him. If the Additional Public Prosecutor would have reexamined him after his said cross-examination, the position would have been quite clear. His statement given in examination-in-chief is not fully corroborated by his FIR Ex P/l wherein he disclosed that his father Nandram (PW 3) and neighbour Sheolal (PW 4) also saw the accused-appellant firing his pistol upon him. As already observed above, Nandram (PW 3) and Sheolal (PW 4) have not said so The other eye-witnesses, namely Bhanwar Singh, Brij Singh, Dhannalal, Hamir Singh have not been produced. There is nothing on the record to indicate as to why they were not produced. Their production was necessary after Nandram (PW 3) and Sheolal (PW 4) were hostile. 6. It may also be mentioned here that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2, Hanumangarh acquitted the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 25 and 27, Arms Act as' recovery of the pistol was not held proved. FIR Ex. P/2 starts with the narration that there existed long standing enmity in between the accused and the complainant Brijlal (PW 2) and the litigation is also going in between them. It seems that this provided a motive for naming the accused-appellant in the FIR Ex.P/2. Under these facts and circumstances, it would not be safe to place reliance on the statement given in the examination-in-chief by the injured informant Brijlal (PW 1). He is not a wholly reliable witness. As such the appeal deserves to be allowed. 7. Consequently the appeal is allowed The accused-appellant Jagdish is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 307, Indian Penal Code. His bail-bonds are here by cancelled.Appeal Allowed. *******