JUDGMENT After perusal of the statements of the prosecution witnesses examined in the case I am unable to agree with the conclusions reached by the learned trial Court in finding the appellant/accused Ghisilal guilty of the offence u/s 307 I.P.C. From he version of Santram (P.W.2) it appears that in the mid- night he heard shouts from the Tank (Talab) side and he heard voice of Mohari. Ram shouting to catch the thief, so he also ran and other villagers also ran and the thief had fired but still they followed him and then they had caught him and that they did not know him from before. Santram has further stated that the thief was trying to load the gun by sitting behind a Med and till that time they had not caught the thief and then Heera also came and he had caught the thief. Santram has further deposed that Mohari Ram had come from behind and he dealt a blow with Danda, on the hand in which the thief was holding the pistol and so the pistol had fallen down and then they had caught the thief and they had brought him in the school of the village. Mohariram (P. W. 9) has not fully supported the prosecution version regarding the incident and according to him, he had also heard shouts of thief and then he came out and saw that number of villagers had collected and so he also reached there but it was a dark night and so he could not recognize the person whom the villagers had caught. Mohari Ram (P.W.9) was cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution and he was confronted with his diary statement EX.P-10 to portion A to A. But he had denied to have given such an statement to the police. Gopelal (P.W.6) is the complainant who had lodged the report EX.-6 at the Police Station. Mohari Ram (P.W.9) was cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution and he was confronted with his diary statement EX.P-10 to portion A to A. But he had denied to have given such an statement to the police. Gopelal (P.W.6) is the complainant who had lodged the report EX.-6 at the Police Station. According to Gopelal, his Chacha (Uncle) Moharilal was sleeping in his house and near his house under the Bair tree in the shade a person was sitting and so his chacha awoke and when he sent out-side the court yard and his eye fell on that person he asked that who he was and that person started running away and so his chacha also went shouting behind him and that, he, Motilal and Mohariram had chased that person and that person had fird at his Chacha but it did not strike him. According to Gopelal (P.W.6), that accused had fired 4 times at his Chacha and afterwards the villagers had caught that person and had brought to the village. This version of Gope1al (P.W.6) does not find support from the version of his Chacha Mohariram (P.W.9). Besides this, according to Gopelal (P.W.6) he had got written report Ex.P-6 that the person had fired 3 or 4 times but this version does not find place in EX.P-6. Deendayal (P.W.3) is not an eye witness but he had also heard the cries that some thief has been caught so he had also gone near the school and number of persons had collected there and Chowkidar was also there. From the version of Deen Dayal it appears that the villagers had beaten Ghisilal and that he had number of injuries. Parasram (P.W.4) has also stated about hearing shouts of thief-thief in the night and the villagers had caught one person who was thief but he did not recognize that person and this person had not indentified the accused as the person whom the villagers had caught. Parasram (P.W.4) had also not fully supported the prosecution version. Heera Lal (P.W.5) and Ramesh (P.W.8) have also not fully corroborated the prosecution version and both these witnesses had also been permitted to be cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution. Parasram (P.W.4) had also not fully supported the prosecution version. Heera Lal (P.W.5) and Ramesh (P.W.8) have also not fully corroborated the prosecution version and both these witnesses had also been permitted to be cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution. According to the version of Station Officer, Hanumant Singh Rajput (P.W.10) on the spot he had recovered six live cartridges point 22 taking a search of the accused Ghisilal which he had seized as per seizure memo EX.P-7. But in this regard Santram (P.W.2) has given a different version. According to Santram (P.W.2) they had taken the Katta and Kartoos (cartridges) to the Thana. It was also the contention of Santram (P.W.2) during his cross-examination that it was correct that the Police had not seized the Katta and Karttos from the thief. San tram had also deposed the fact that the thief had been badly beaten by the villagers. Parasram (P.W.4) who is also a witness to the seizure memo EX.P-2 and also to the Panchnama (Ex.P-3)regarding search of the accused having been taken but this witness had denied that six live cartridges had been taken out from the pocket of the accused Ghisilal because he had seen the cartridges in the Thana. Gopelal (P.W.6) has also tried to show that the police has seized the Katta and cartridges from the accused Ghisilal but his version does not appear to be correct because the Katta was seized from Gopelal himself as per Ex.p-2 on record. It has also not been proved on behalf of the prosecution that the Katta or Pistol alleged to have been seized in the case was packed and sealed in the presence of witnesses and that the same was sent in a sealed condition to the ballistic expert for examination. Thus, on the basis of the prosecution evidence adduced in the case it cannot be definitely said that the accused Ghisilal had attempted to commit the murder of Mohari Ram (P. W. 9) who was trying to chase him by firing at him with the Katta, because, Mohari Ram (P.W.9) has himself not stated that accused Ghisilal had fired at him or that he had chased the said Ghisilal along-with other villagers. The conclusions drawn by the learned trial Court on the basis of Prosecution evidence adduced in the case do not appear to be correct. The conclusions drawn by the learned trial Court on the basis of Prosecution evidence adduced in the case do not appear to be correct. From the prosecution evidence adduced in the case it may be possible that the accused Ghisilal had been seen under the tree in the night and taking him to be a thief he may have chased by the villagers and taking him to be a thief he must have been assaulted by the villagers because a numbers of injuries had been found on his person at the time he was medically examined, as it also appears from the version of constable Shailesh Kumar (P.W. 1) who stated that there are 8 or 10 injuries on the person of accused Ghisilal who had been got medically examined. However, the fact that the accused Ghisilal had fired with Katta in an attempt to kill Mohari Ram (P.W.9) does not stand proved beyond all reasonable and probable doubt by the prosecution evidence adduced in the case and so the accused/appellant Ghisilal is entitled to get the benefit of doubt and his appeal is also liable to be allowed.