JUDGMENT S.I. Jafri, J. - Jwala Prasad has filed this revision against his conviction under Section 324 I.P.C. and sentence of 3 years R. I. affirmed by Sri N. C. Jain, III Addl. Sessions Judge, Aligarh in Criminal Appeal No. 121 of 1985 by his judgment and order dated 31.1.1986 arising out of judgment and order dated 13.6.1986 convicting and sentencing the applicant under Section 324 I.P.C. to 3 years R. 1. in Cri. Case No. 1341 of 1984 State v. Jwala Prasad. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 18.10.82 at about 7.45 p.m. in village Pala Sahibabad, Police Station Sasni Gate, Aligarh when Snit. Longshree wife of the complainant Motiram along with Snit. Urmila, Km. Bhago, Smt. Bhudevi and Smt. Vina were answering the call of the nature in a field near the house of the accused Jwala Prasad, the accused fired towards them from his licensed gun causing gun shot injuries to Smt. Longshree, Snit. Longshree was medically examined at Malkhan Singh Hospital. The complainant Motiram lodged a report of the occurrence at P. S. Sasni Gate at 10 p.m. and a case under Section 324 I.P.C. was registered against the accused. 3. After completing the investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the accused. 4. In order to prove the prosecution examined Motiram, complainant (P.W. 2), his wife, Smt. Longshree injured (P.W. 3) Sentence under Section 324,1. P.C.-Firing, and his daughter Km. Bhago (P.W. 6) and from a distance of 10 or 15 yards-Paucity they have corroborated the prosecution case. 5. Smt. Longshree (P.W. 3) has narrated the prosecution case in detail. She has stated that the accused had fired from a distance of 10 or 15 yards towards the place where they were easing themselves. 6. I have very carefully gone through the evidence of the eye-witnesses in this case. I have heard Sri Veresh Misra learned counsel for the applicant. I have also heard the learned counsel of the State Sri B. S. Yadav, learned counsel for complaint was also heard. The learned counsel submitted that no light is mentioned in the first information report and the occurrence has taken place admittedly at about 7.45 p.m. on 18.10.1982. Under the circumstance, it is absolutely clear that at the time of the occurrence there was darkness. The learned counsel submitted that no light is mentioned in the first information report and the occurrence has taken place admittedly at about 7.45 p.m. on 18.10.1982. Under the circumstance, it is absolutely clear that at the time of the occurrence there was darkness. Moreover, Smt. Longshree (P.W. 3) has admitted that the firing was done by the accused from distance of 10 to 15 yards. Under the circumstance it is highly doubtful that the accused was recognised by the witnesses at the time of occurrence. 7. I have given my utmost consideration to this aspect of the matter and I also feel that there was paucity of light at the time of the occurrence and as such it will not be safe to convict the applicant. 8. In the result, the revision is allowed. The conviction of the applicant under Section 324 I.P.C. and sentence of 3 years R. I. are set aside. The applicant is on bail. He need not surrender.