ORDER : K. Jayachandra Reddy, J. 1. The appellant is mainly convicted under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life for causing the death of one Dheersingh. The facts giving rise to this case are as follows. 2. On June 8, 1973 at about 10.30 a.m. Dheersingh along with his brother-in-law, Gurbachansingh PW 4 came to the shop of Jarnailsingh, PW 1 and ordered for two glasses of Lassi. At that time one Ashiq, resident of Rathikhera came there armed with a twelve-bore double-barrel gun and fired at Dheersingh who was sitting on the chair in the verandah. The shot hit on the left side of Dheersingh. Dheersingh also had a licenced gun. He immediately retaliated and shot at Ashiq which hit on the head of Ashiq who fell down and died. Then the appellant along with one Maida and two others shot at Dheersingh eight or ten times which hit Dheersingh who fell down and died. The guns belonging to the two deceased persons were taken away by the four accused persons. Kesharsingh PW 2 gave a report to the SHO who came to the place of the occurrence and made an inspection of the scene of the occurrence. The inquest was held on the two dead bodies and they were sent for post-mortem. PW 3, the doctor, conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of Dheersingh and found 13 gunshot injuries on his body. On internal examination he found comminuted fracture of skull bones, ribs, rupture of pleurae and lungs. He opined that the death was due to these injuries. He gave a further opinion that fatal injuries were Nos. 4, 5 and 8 out of 13 injuries, injuries Nos. 1, 3, 7, 12 and 13 were caused after the death of Dheersingh. The accused were arrested and it is alleged that at their instance respective weapons were recovered. After completion of the investigation three out four accused persons were put up for trial. The trial court convicted all of them namely Saida, Maida and Abda. The High Court acquitted Abda and convicted Saida, the appellant and Maida. Maida is not before us. The accused were arrested and it is alleged that at their instance respective weapons were recovered. After completion of the investigation three out four accused persons were put up for trial. The trial court convicted all of them namely Saida, Maida and Abda. The High Court acquitted Abda and convicted Saida, the appellant and Maida. Maida is not before us. On behalf of the appellant, Saida, it is submitted that the prosecution has not come forward with the whole truth and the circumstances would show that the witnesses have roped in the other accused along with the appellant by way of an omnibus allegation and it cannot be concluded that the appellant caused any injury to Dheersingh, the deceased with a firearm. In this context, learned counsel for the appellant heavily relied on the medical evidence. All the PWs in one voice have deposed that Dheersingh was taking Lassi in the shop of PW 1. Ashiq came there and opened fire and caused injuries to Dheersingh. Then Dheersingh with his gun which was with him shot at Ashiq who fell down and died. It is thereafter alleged by these witnesses that the appellant and three others who happened to be there joined immediately and started shooting at the deceased, Dheersingh. We are unable to accept this omnibus allegation made by these three eyewitnesses that the appellant and three others shot the deceased. The doctor found 13 injuries. Out of them 5 are said to be post-mortem injuries. The prosecution has not clarified how much time after the death the deceased could have received these post-mortem injuries. That apart the police have recovered 16 pellets from the shop of Jarnailsingh, PW 1; 12 pellets from the dead body of Dheersingh and some pellets from the shop of one Ramkishan near which Ashiq is supposed to have been standing. These circumstances would clearly indicate that there was cross-firing. In such a situation, it is difficult to imagine that these witnesses would have been present there watching what the other accused including the appellant did. It is rather unsafe to accept this omnibus allegation to uphold the conviction of the appellant. The testimony of the eyewitnesses is consistent and acceptable as to the first part of the occurrence namely to the extent of Ashiq firing at Dheersingh and Dheersingh retaliating by firing at Ashiq and killing him thereafter. It is rather unsafe to accept this omnibus allegation to uphold the conviction of the appellant. The testimony of the eyewitnesses is consistent and acceptable as to the first part of the occurrence namely to the extent of Ashiq firing at Dheersingh and Dheersingh retaliating by firing at Ashiq and killing him thereafter. The circumstances would indicate that in a confusion cross-firing was going on there, otherwise so many pellets would not have been recovered from the shop of Ramkishan which is in opposite direction where Ashiq was supposed to have been standing and received the fatal injuries. Therefore, it is highly unsafe to convict the appellant. We give the benefit of doubt to the appellant and set aside the convictions and the sentences awarded under Sections 302 and 148 Indian Penal Code. If the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled. 3. The appeal is allowed accordingly. Appeal allowed.