JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, J —This appeal is directed against the order of acquittal passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Arki in case No. 12/2 of 1985, decided on 10-12-1986. 2. Briefly, the allegation against the accused is that on 6-11-1984 deceased Dhani Ram was removing the hair of his private part while sitting behind the bushes near Deeb Mandir also known as Paplota Mandir. Some one took him for a wild animal and fired at him. His cries were heard by Madan Lal, Rain Lal and Surat Ram They went to the spot and found the deceased in an injured condition in a pool of blood, lying behind the bushes. On inquiry, they were told by the deceased that someone had fired at him with a gun Similar was his statement to the members of his family, who came to the spot as soon as they were informed about it. 3. The deceased was removed to the Primary Health Centre Domehar for medical treatment where Shri Vijay Mehta informed the police telephonically that the deceased had been shot at with a gun by someone. The Station House Officer reached the Primary Health Centre, where he sent Rucka to the Police Station Arki. First Information Report was registered and the police started investigation for offences, like, 337 and 338 Indian Penal Code. The deceased could not survive and died on 7-11-1984 at 7.30 a. m. On his death, the case was converted to section 304-A Indian Penal Code. 4. The police took into possession blood stained earth, grass pieces, hair of private part, blade with cover, 49 pieces of cartridges (pelletes) and 6 pieces of cartridge paper (Wads) from the place where the deceased was found injured. The police also took into custody one 12 bore SBBL Gun S. N. 1473, one gun licence No, 7/82 one live Cartridge No. 2. It also recovered one 12 bore fired Cartridge on the basis of information and demarcation by the accused, from nearby the place of occurrence. The gun 12 bore, fired Cartridge, pelletes and Wads were sent to Director Ballistics-cum-Assistant Chemical Examiner, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh, who reported that 12 bore fired cartridge had been fired through 12 bore Gun S. N. 1473 and Wads pelletes could have been fired through the same Gun On completion of investigation, the accused was proceeded against in the trial Court. The charge against him was for causing the death of the deceased negligently with gun fire He claimed trial and did not plead guilty. Consequently, in order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses. 5. The trial Court examined the evidence recorded in this case quite exhaustively and came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to substantiate the charge against the accused so he was entitled to be acquitted of the same. This is how the State has felt aggrieved by this decision ot the trial Court, hence this appeal. 6. During the course of hearing of this appeal, Counsel for the parties referred to the evidence recorded in this case The Counsel for the State claimed that the acquittal recorded by the trial Court deserves to be set aside in view of sufficient evidence available on the record of this case clearly pointing out the responsibility of the accused for the commission of the crime but this submission of the State Counsel was vehemently assailed by the Counsel appearing in defence of the accused. After looking to the record, more particularly the evidence in this case, it is quite clear that the prosecution case principally hinges on circumstantial evidence although attempt has been made to say that the accused had admitted the commission of the crime to certain prosecution witnesses. The deceased was removing the hair of his private part while sitting behind the bushes. From the site-plan prepared by the police during the course of investigation, it can be seen that the deceased was not in sight from these bushes at the time of incident. He was taken to be a wild animal and shot at by someone. The deceased did not name anyone for the incident, while he talked to Madan Lal, Surat Ram and Ram Lai Similar was his statement to his relations, who visited him soon after the incident. He was taken to the Primary Health Centre and there also he did not name anyone to the Doctor or to the Station House Officer. 7. The investigation took U-turn thereafter and the police started collecting witnesses to suggest that the accused was seen moving in that area and sound of gun fire was also heard. He was taken to the Primary Health Centre and there also he did not name anyone to the Doctor or to the Station House Officer. 7. The investigation took U-turn thereafter and the police started collecting witnesses to suggest that the accused was seen moving in that area and sound of gun fire was also heard. These witnesses are Hem Raj (PW 8) who states that while he was coming to his house from School on 6-11-1984 at about 5.00 p. m , be met the deceased who was going to his Village Jamna. He also met the accused after sometime who was carrying a gun with him. At his house he took tea and thereafter while going to Gharat, he heard sound of gun shot but he has not said that it was the accused who had fired the gun. While Durga Dass (PW 9) also states that he saw the accused while carrying a Gun and going towards Paplota temple. He also not associated the accused with this fire. 8. Mansa Ram (PW 4) is a witness to the recoveries made in this case. However, his submission does not appear to be dependable for the reason that the accused has denied having made this kind of statement. Further, it cannot be believed that the accused would know the place where the fired Cartridge could have been left. Had he actually fired the gun at the deceased, taking him to be a wild animal, it was but natural that he would have straightway gone to locate and witness the catch behind the bushes. In this process, he could have been by the deceased and his name revealed to number of persons who met him after the incident. In view of this kind of evidence, it is difficult to believe that the fired Cartridge examined by the Ballistic expert was actually the one which killed the deceased. There is no evidence pointing out that the deceased was killed with this fire even if it is accepted that Cartridge (Ex P 9) was fired from 12 bore SBBL Gun SN 1473 (Ex. P-7). Similarly it is not easy to believe the statements of Mansa Ram (PW 4) and Ram Chander (PW 10) who say that the accused had confessed before the police in their presence that he had mistakenly fired at the deceased. P-7). Similarly it is not easy to believe the statements of Mansa Ram (PW 4) and Ram Chander (PW 10) who say that the accused had confessed before the police in their presence that he had mistakenly fired at the deceased. Further, this statement is inadmissible in evidence in view of section 16 of Indian Evidence Act. Hariman (PW 11) is an interested witness being related to the deceased. His version speaks of his clear interest in the case. 9. Finally, one more essential fact in this case deserves to be noticed. The prosecution case is that the accused killed the deceased rashly and negligently but no evidence has been led establishing the essential ingredients of section 304-A Indian Penal Code. Similarly, the accused has not been asked to explain these circumstances in his examination under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code. It appears from the nature of prosecution evidence that it had also come to the conclusion during the course of investigation in this case that the deceased was killed by the accused by sheer mistake, since he took the deceased to be a wild animal, behind the bushes. Circumstances appearing in this case also indicate quite clearly that the deceased could be taken to be a wild animal since he was sitting at a far of place that too behind the thick growth of bushes. Incident also occurred after 5 00 p. m., on 6-11-1984. There was no enmity between the accused and the deceased. There is no allegation of rashness or negligence against the accused. This means defence of mistake of fact(section 76, Indian Penal Code) is also distinctly attracted in this case. 10. This is an appeal against acquittal. Unless the approach of the trial Court is clearly perverse or grossly unreasonable, interference by this Court is not called for. The trial Court has examined the matter quite exhaustively before ordering the acquittal of the accused. I see no justification to take view different from the one already taken by the trial Court in this case There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed- Bail-bonds and surety bonds, executed by the accused in this case are hereby cancelled. Appeal dismissed.