A. N. DIKSHITA, J. Dinesh Kumar alias Barey, Ram Rakshpal, Rampal and Shishu Kumar alias Laraitey all sons of Mewaram have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 10-P-1979 passed by Sri P. K. Misra, II Addl. Sessionsjjudge, Shahjahanpur. By the impugned judgment all the appellants have been convicted under Sections 307/34, I. P. C. and Sections 324/34, I. P. C. On the first count the appellants have been sentenced to 18 months R. I. each and a fine of Rs. 500 each, while on the second count they have been sentenced to six months R. I. each and a fine of Rs. 250 each. In default of payment of fine the appellants have been directed to undergo four months R. I. for the first count and two months R. I. for the second count. The two sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. During the pendency of the appeal Ram Rakshpal died as reported by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahajahanpur. The appeal in respect of Ram Rakashpal, therefore, abates. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 23-10-1976 at about 10. 30 a. m. Ram Shankar along with his son Rama Kant had gone to his field and in order to irrigate it had attempted to open the kolaba when suddenly the appellants reached the spot. Dinesh Kumar was armed with a Tamancha, Ram Rakshpal was armed with a gun while the remaining two appellants had lathis in their hands. They approached Ram Shankar and told him that they would open the kolaba first to irrigate their field. Ram Shankar requested them to permit him to irrigate his field first as his field had gone dry and the appel lants had irrigated their field recently. On this the appellants hurled abuses to which Ram Shankar requested to refrain. But appellant Shishu Kumar alias Laraitey exhorted his brother to fire. Ram Shankar ran out on his cries Shiv Lal Kachi, Pyare Kahar, Parag Dutt, Ramesh, Raman, Naresh, Rameshwar Dayal and Ram Shankar son of Rudra Prasad reached the spot. Appellant Shishu Kumar again exhorted that so many persons had reached the site and as such firearms must be used. But appellant Shishu Kumar alias Laraitey exhorted his brother to fire. Ram Shankar ran out on his cries Shiv Lal Kachi, Pyare Kahar, Parag Dutt, Ramesh, Raman, Naresh, Rameshwar Dayal and Ram Shankar son of Rudra Prasad reached the spot. Appellant Shishu Kumar again exhorted that so many persons had reached the site and as such firearms must be used. Firearms were accordingly used from the side of the appellants causing injuries to Rama Kant, Parag Dutt, Shiv Pal, Pyare, Raman, Naresh and Ramesh, Rama Kant fell on the ground there and the appellants considering Rama Kant dead filed away from the scene of occurrence. 4. A written report of the incident was lodged by Ram Shankar at P. S. Jaitipur, Shahjahanpur, at 3. 30 p. m. i. e. after five hours of the incident on the same day 23-10-1976 the distance of the police station from the place of incident being four miles. 5. The injured were medically examined on 23-10-1976 at Miranpur Katra Dispensary, Shahjahanpur by Dr. S. K. Dixit. He found the following injuries on the injured persons: Naresh Baboo Injuries 1. G. S. W. 1/4 cm X 1/4 cm X muscle deep on the ant. Surface of the left shoulder joint. 2. G. S. W. 1/4 cm X 1/4 cm skin deep on the ant. Surface of the left leg. 5 cm below to left, knee joint. Margins of wounds are lacerated inverted. Ramesh Injuries 1. Firearm wounds of inlet on the forehead right side 4 cm above to right eye brow. Size 1/4 cm X 1/4 cm X scalp deep. 2. Firearm wound of inlet 1/4 cm X 1/4 cm X l1/2cm on the chest left side ant. Surface, 5 cm above and medial to it nipple. 3. Firearm wound 1/4 cm X 1/4 cm X skin skin deep on the abd. Right side lat. surface Margins of wounds are lac. and inverted. Blacken ing, charring and tattooing is absent. Injuries No. 1 and 3 are simple in nature and No. 2 is kept under observation. All injuries are caused by pellets of a Firearm. Raman Lal Injuries 1. G. S. W. of inlet 1/4 cm X 1/4 cm X muscle deep on the neck ant. surface right side. 2. G. S. W. 1/4 cm X 1/4 cm muscle deep on the abd. ant. surface left side of the outer to the umblicus. 3. All injuries are caused by pellets of a Firearm. Raman Lal Injuries 1. G. S. W. of inlet 1/4 cm X 1/4 cm X muscle deep on the neck ant. surface right side. 2. G. S. W. 1/4 cm X 1/4 cm muscle deep on the abd. ant. surface left side of the outer to the umblicus. 3. G. S. W. (two in no.) on the ant. surface and one on outer surface of the It. forearm 9 1/2 cm above to left wrist jt. size 1/4 cm X 1/4 cm X muscle deep and both wounds. 4. G. S. W. 1/4 cm X 1/4 cm X muscle deep on the outer surface of the left leg, 12cm above to left lateral malicious. 5. G. S. W. 1/4cm X 1/4cmx skin deep on the dorsum of the left big toe. 6. G. S. W. 1/4 cm X 1/4cm muscle deep on the post, surface of the right leg. 13cm above to right ankle it. All are simple injuries caused by pellet of a firearm. Pyare Injuries 1. G. S. W. of inlet on the ant. surface of abd. left side 1/4 cm X 1/4 cm X muscle deep llcm above and outer to the umblicus, Injuries is simple in nature, caused by pellets of firearm,, Injuries 1. G. S. W. 1/4 cm X 1/4 cm X muscle deep on the post, surface of right elbow joint. 2. G. S. W. 1/4cm X 1/4cm X muscle deep on the abd. left side ant. 3. surface. 3. G. S. W. 1/4cm X 1/4cm X muscle deep on the medial surface of the left leg 8 cm below to left knee joint. All the injuries are simple and caused by pellets of a firearm. Prayag Dutt Injury 1. G. S. W. 1/4 cm X 1/4 cm X scalp deep on the head left side 3 cm above to left ear. Injury is simple in nature, caused by pellets of a firearm. Rama Kant Injuries 1. G. S. W. 1/2cm X 1/4cm skin deep on the forehead right side 3 cm above to right eye brow. 2. G. S. W. as so with abrasion 1cm X 1cm on the sup. surface of the left shoulder jt. size G. S. W. 1/4cm X 1/4cm X skin deep. 3. Multiple G. S. W. in area of 32 X 24cm on the ant. 2. G. S. W. as so with abrasion 1cm X 1cm on the sup. surface of the left shoulder jt. size G. S. W. 1/4cm X 1/4cm X skin deep. 3. Multiple G. S. W. in area of 32 X 24cm on the ant. surface of the chest and epigastric region of the abdorren. No of wound 13 only, size 1/4cm X 1/4cm depth l 1/2cm. Probe not passed, more than li cm due to danger of infection to the chest cavity and abdomen cavity, surgical emphysema present around the wounds, present on the chest, there are 9 wound on the chest. 4. Abrased G. S. W. 1 X 1/2cm on the medial surface of the ft. elbow jt. 5. G. S. W. two in no. on the ant. surface of the right forearm, size 1/4cm X 1/4cm X muscle deep in upper 1/3. 6. G. S. W. 1/4cm X 1/4cm X muscle deep on the medial surface of the lett upper arm. 7. G. S. W. 1/4cm X 1/4cm X skin deep on the post surface of the left forearm, 3 cm above to left wrist. 8. G. S. W. (3 in no.) on the ant. surface of the left thigh in an area of 12 X 4cm X size 1/4cm X 1/4cm X muscle deep (of all wounds ). 9. G. S. W. (two in no.) on the left leg in middle 1/3 part. 15cm below to left knee jt. size 1/4cm X 1/4cm muscle deep. This wound is on the ant. surface of leg, size of the other wound is 1/4cm X 1/4cm skin deep this wound is on the medial side of left leg. " 6. The case was investigated by S. I. , Iqtedar Hussain. S. O. , P. S. Jaitipur. After the completion of the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants. 7. The apepllants pleaded not guilty and hence they were put on the trial. 8. The Additional Sessions Judge found the appellants guilty and accordingly convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above. 9. The prosecution in support of its case examined Ram Shankar PW 1. He has supported the prosecution case as detailed by him in the first informa tion report. He was present at the spot when the incident took place. The hot words were exchanged by Ram Shankar on the one hand and the appellants on the other. 9. The prosecution in support of its case examined Ram Shankar PW 1. He has supported the prosecution case as detailed by him in the first informa tion report. He was present at the spot when the incident took place. The hot words were exchanged by Ram Shankar on the one hand and the appellants on the other. Seven gun shots were fired. Very many persons present there were injured including Ramakant but surprisingly Ram Shankar did not receive even a single pellet injury. Another surprising part of the prosecution version which does not inspire confidence is that the field for which water was requir ed had already been given by Ram Shankar to one Rameshwar Dayal on Batai. Apparently Ram Shankar had little interest except in the share of the crop. The testimony of this witness does not inspire confidence. 10. Rameshwar Dayal PW 2 has tried to support the prosecution story. It is stated by him that on hearing the cries of Ram Shankar he reached the spot. In his cross-examination he has admitted that this field has been given to him on Batai by Ram Shankar. He has also admitted that the field of Ram Shankar is at a long distance from this field. Rameshwar Dayal PW 2 is an interested witness and much reliance cannot be placed on his evidence. Further it has not to be lost sigit of that this witness had sown Dhan in this field which was given on Batai. If the fields was getting dry and it required water, then Rameshwar Dayal PW 2 ought to have been more interested in that field instead of Ram Shankar. 11. Except these two eye witnesses no other indepandent witnesses like Shiv Lal, Pyaie Kahar, Prag Dutt, Ramesh, Raman, Naresh and Rameshwar Dayal and Ram Shankar son of Rudhra Prasad who had witnessed the incident have been produced in this case, though Prag Dutt, Ramesh, Ram Shankar, Shiv Lal, Pyare have been mentioned in the charge sheet. Even Dr. S. K. Dixit who examined the injured and the Investigating Officer have not appeared to support the prosecution case. The Court below summoned Dr. S. K. Dikhsit as CW 1 and the Investigating Officer Iqtedar Husain as CW 2. Even Dr. S. K. Dixit who examined the injured and the Investigating Officer have not appeared to support the prosecution case. The Court below summoned Dr. S. K. Dikhsit as CW 1 and the Investigating Officer Iqtedar Husain as CW 2. Pyare who has been mentioned in the first information report as a witness of the incident and has been mentioned in the charge-sheet has appeared as a defence witness. Pyare DW 1 has given an entirely different version than the one given in the first information report. He has stated that the incident took place in the Galiyara in front of the houses of Ram Shankar and Mewaram. He has also stated that the fire arms were exchanged from the respective houses. He has completely shifted the scene of occurrence which gathers support in view of the fact that the boys of ages between 10 and 12 received gun shot injuries. It is imporable that the boys of these ages would go to the field of Ram Shankar or of the appellants. It is also not revealing from the record is to what is the distance between the houses of Ram Shankar, the appellants and the other injured persons. The truthfulness of the prosecution story thus stands mitigated and the version of Pyarey DW 1 appears to be more probable. Further Ram Shankar PW 1 has admitted in his cross-examination that he showed the spot where the incident took place to the Investigating Officer, He also showed him the blood which had cozed out from the body of Ramakant. Iqtedar Husain CW 2 has however denied that the saw any food. He further states that he did not find any pellet or empties at the place of the occurrence which also fortifies the version of Pyare DW 1 that the incident took place in the Galiyara. A very reasonable suspicion has been created regarding the truthfulness of the prosecution version. It is very difficult to maintain the conviction of the appellants on such evidence which is so sketchy. Why no injured witness, who would have been material and superior has been examined in this case, is not forthcoming. Such a suppres sion of the material witnesses by the prosecution has to be deprecated. It is thus apparent that the investigation in this case has not been straight forward and above board. Why no injured witness, who would have been material and superior has been examined in this case, is not forthcoming. Such a suppres sion of the material witnesses by the prosecution has to be deprecated. It is thus apparent that the investigation in this case has not been straight forward and above board. The slip shod manner in which investigation has been carried out by Sri Iqtedar Hussain, C. W. 2 deserves denunciation. Even the head constable who prepared the chik report has not been produced. The Investi gating Officer proved the chik report. Further it is admitted by Sri Iqtedar Hussain, C. W. 2 that he prepared the site-plan. In the site-plan the field of Ram Shankar or his Bataidar, Rameshwar Dayal has not been shown. Rather the field of the appellants is shown and the Kolaba is also shown. What is the distance between the Kolaba and the field of Ram Shankar is not shown. It appears that this formality has been complied with in an empty manner. It is unfortunate that on account of such an interested or negligent investi gation a serious crime is going unpunished. This appeal deserves to be allowed for lack of credible evidence as well as faulty or interested investi gation. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and the sentences of the appellants are set aside. The appellants are on bail and they need not surrender and their bail bonds are discharged. Fine if deposited in Court shall be refunded to the appellants. The fine if deposited by Ram Rikshpal (deceased) shall be refunded to appellant, Dinesh Kumar. Appeal allowed. .