ORDER : K. Jayachandra Reddy, J. 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. This is an appeal under Section 379 Criminal Procedure Code read with Section 2(A) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act. There are three appellants [original accused Bikram Singh (A-1), Sukhdev Prasad (A-3) and Sheo Shankar Singh (A-2). They along with one Swami Din Singh were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 225 Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act read with Sections 27/5 of the Arms Act for having committed the murder of Hanumant Singh by firing gunshot on the deceased on December 5, 1972 at about 4.45 p.m. in the village Kurhena. During the same occurrence, they were alleged to have caused injuries to four persons Rahim Khan, Pheran, Pooran and Jagdish]. The prosecution case is that there was enmity between the accused and the deceased. On December 5, 1972, there was a Mela near the Majar of Saiyed Baba. At about 4.45 p.m. when the deceased along with his father Sunder Singh (PW 11) were witnessing the Mela, the accused Bikram Singh suddenly appeared with a gun which belonged to the fourth accused ? father of Bikram Singh. Bikram Singh came very near and advanced some threats and shot at the deceased. The people in the Mela became panicky and ran helter-skelter. While Bikram Singh was running with his gun he was chased by PWs 9, 10 and 11. Bikram Singh tried to escape but finding that he was chased by a large number of persons, he turned back and fired two shots as a result of which PW 9 and others received injuries. PW 4 and PW 10 continued to chase and apprehended Bikram Singh in the fields and the gun was snatched from him. When Bikram Singh was thus caught, the other accused viz., A-2 and A-3 suddenly appeared there and they tried to take back the gun but could not succeed. PW 11 is said to have continued the chase, but Bikram Singh made good his escape. A report (Ex. P-21) was given. The injured were taken in a tractor but the deceased died in the meantime. The post-mortem was conducted and the doctor found eight gunshot injuries and the vital parts were injured. He opined that the death was caused due to those injuries. A report (Ex. P-21) was given. The injured were taken in a tractor but the deceased died in the meantime. The post-mortem was conducted and the doctor found eight gunshot injuries and the vital parts were injured. He opined that the death was caused due to those injuries. The injured persons including PW 9 were also examined by the doctors. They had also gunshot injuries on them. The accused were arrested and after completion of the investigation a charge-sheet was laid. The plea of the accused has been one of denial. The trial court examined PWs 4, 5, 9, 10 and 11 among others as eyewitnesses. PW 10 and PW 11 supported the prosecution case. The trial court mainly relied upon the evidence of PWs 4, 9, 10 and 11 and out of them PWs 4 and 9 were treated hostile. The trial court, while appreciating the evidence of other eyewitnesses pointed out certain omissions and discrepancies with regard to their earlier statements on very minor particulars. All the discussion was on the motive aspect. 3. We have gone through the discussion and we find that the reasons given for discarding the evidence of PWs 10 and 11 do not stand to scrutiny. The trial court ultimately acquitted all the four accused. The State preferred an appeal in the High Court. The High Court having reconsidered the evidence of the witnesses, and to a great extent, the evidence of PWs 4 and 9, has rightly held that the reasons given by the trial court for discarding the evidence are wholly unsound. The High Court, however, felt that this is a case where the accused should be convicted for their individual acts and in that view of the matter, the High Court set aside the acquittal of Bikram Singh and convicted him under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. So far as A-2 and A-3 are concerned, the High Court held that they have committed the offence under Section 225 Indian Penal Code viz., for causing obstruction for lawful apprehension of the culprit. Bikram Singh was also convicted for other charges. So far as the fourth accused is concerned, the High Court confirmed his acquittal. Hence, this appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that some of the material injured witnesses were not examined. Therefore, an adverse inference has to be drawn. Bikram Singh was also convicted for other charges. So far as the fourth accused is concerned, the High Court confirmed his acquittal. Hence, this appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that some of the material injured witnesses were not examined. Therefore, an adverse inference has to be drawn. It is true that as many as five persons were injured and out of them prosecution examined PW 9 ? one of the injured witnesses. From the record it appears that the other injured witnesses were gained over and they were hostile to the prosecution and they were not examined. However, the mere non-examination of these witnesses cannot be a ground to reject the evidence of PW 10 and PW 11, which to a large extent, is corroborated by the evidence of PWs 4 and 9. Even in the earliest version it is mentioned that it was Bikram Singh who shot at the deceased. The High Court has carefully analysed the evidence and also gone through the reasons given by the trial court for discarding the evidence of these witnesses. There is no reason why the evidence of PW 10 and PW 11 should be discarded, particularly, when the same gets support from the earliest version. The medical evidence also supports the version. Further, to a large extent, PWs 4 and 9 also support the version. Having given our earnest consideration we are of the firm view that the reasons given by the Sessions Court for discarding the evidence are unsound and the High Court has taken a correct view in the matter. 5. Coming to the convictions of Sheo Shankar and Sukhdeo Prasad, they are convicted under Section 225 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for two years each. It is stated that they are in jail for some time and we think having regard to the fact that this is an old offence, they need not be sent back to jail. Therefore, while confirming their conviction we reduce their sentence to the period already undergone. Conviction of Bikram Singh and the sentence awarded by the High Court for various offences are, however, confirmed. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed as against A-1 Bikram Singh and partly allowed in respect of A-2, Sheo Shankar Singh and A-3, Sukhdeo Singh. Bikram Singh, who is on bail, shall surrender and serve out the sentence.