JUDGMENT - VISHNU SAHAI, J.:-Vide order dated 27-12-1987 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, in Sessions Case No. 48/1985 convicted the appellant No. 2 Ragunath Shripati Kolekar under section 307 I.P.C. and appellant No. 1 Bhupal Kallapa Sangave under section 307 read with 34 I.P.C. and sentenced each one of them to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- and in default to further undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment. In addition to appellant No. 2 was convicted and sentenced to 1 year R.I. under section 27 Arms Act. Along with the appellants 7 other persons, namely, Jinnapa Goura Kamble, Madhu Mortyappa Tambgoli, Nomgonda Malgonda Patil, Rama Krishna Naikavade, Prabhakar Biraji Kamble, Shivyogi Tippanna Birajaar and Saning Bharnappa Pujari were also tried but they have been acquitted by the aforesaid order. 2. According to the prosecution on 31-1-1985 at about 8.30 p.m. the appellants along with 7 acquitted accused persons participated in a incident in Bhivargi within the limits of Police Station Umadi, District Sangali during the course of which two persons, namely, P.W. 5 Nilavva Tukaram Chougule and P.W. 6 Iravva Sidhappa Indi sustained injuies as a result of firing by the appellant Raghunath Shripati Kolekar from gun. It is alleged by the prosecution that the aforesaid firing was made by the aforesaid appellant at the instigation of appellant Bhupal Kallapa Sangave. According to the prosecution the shot fired by the appellant was aimed at P.W. 4 Shankarayappa Malkappa Chougule but struck P.W. 5 Nilavva Tukaram Chougule and P.W. 6 Iravva Sidhappa Indi who were standing behind Shankaryappa Malkappa Chougule. The acquitted accused persons have been assigned the part of assaulting the complainant Shankaryappa Malkappa Chougule P.W. 4 with fists. 3. The First Information Report of the incident was lodged next moring i.e. on the morning of 1-2-1985 at about 8.30 a.m. by P.W. 4 Shankaryappa Malkappa Chougule. In the aforesaid F.I.R. the appellants are named. 4. The injuries of the aforesaid two victims were examined in civil hospital, Sangali on 1-2-1985 by Dr. Sunil Gangadhar Shintre P.W. 7. On the person of Nilawwa Tukaram Chougule, doctor found two injuries :- (1) C.L.W." x 3" on dorsum of forearm, Muscles and tendons were crushed. Both radius and ulna were found fractured. Pieces of bones were seen through the wound. Sunil Gangadhar Shintre P.W. 7. On the person of Nilawwa Tukaram Chougule, doctor found two injuries :- (1) C.L.W." x 3" on dorsum of forearm, Muscles and tendons were crushed. Both radius and ulna were found fractured. Pieces of bones were seen through the wound. (2) C.L.W. of 4 ½ x 1 inch elliptical, bone-deep muscles crushed, tendons crushed and torn. Both injuries were through and through. On the person of Irawwa Sidhappa Chougule, doctor found following injuries :- "Contused lacerated wound of 3" x 1.5" on palmer aspect as were as on dorsum aspect of right hand, muscles and tendons crushed. Middle finger absent. Fracture of matacorpal bone". A perusal of the statement of doctor show that both the victims were discharged on 5-3-1985 meaning thereby they were in hospital for over two months. 5. The usual investigation was done. During the course of investigation, recovery of hunter is alleged to have been made at the instance of appellant Bhupal and a gun along with three empty cartidges at the instance of appellant Raghunath. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual course. 6. In the trial Court charges under sections 147 I.P.C., 148 I.P.C., 307/149 I.P.C. (against the appellant Bhupal) and 307 I.P.C. (against the appellant Raghunath) were framed. To the aforesaid charges, the appellants and acquitted co-accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. In the trial Court, in all prosecution examined 11 witnesses. It also tendered and proved various exhibits. The learned trial Judge believed the prosecution case and passed the impugned order. 8. I have heard Mr. Ranjit V. More learned Counsel for the appellants and Ms. S.J. Pingolkar learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Maharashtra, at great length. I have also perused deposition of the witnesses examined in the trial Court as also various exhibits tendered and proved by the prosecution during trial and the impugned judgment. 9. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, I am of the opinion that the appeal of Bhupal Kallapa Sangave deserves to be allowed and that of Raghunath Shripati Kolekar deserves to be dismissed. 10. 9. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, I am of the opinion that the appeal of Bhupal Kallapa Sangave deserves to be allowed and that of Raghunath Shripati Kolekar deserves to be dismissed. 10. In the instant case, four eye witnesses were examined by the prosecution, namely, P.W. 4 Shankaryappa Malkappa Chougule the informant, P.W. 5 Nilavva Tukaram Chougule, P.W. 6 Iravva Sidhappa Indi and P.W. 8 Ramgounda Sidhappa Chougule. Out of the aforesaid witnesses, P.W. 5 and 6 are injured witnesses. P. W. 4 Shankaryappa Malkappa Chougule has nominated both the appellants alleging that at the instigation of appellant Bhupal, appellant Raghunath fired. The other three witnesses have only said that someone instigated. 11. So far as appellant Raghunath Shripati Kolekar is concerned, there can be no doubt that he participated in the incident. The evidence of the informant who has nominated him and said that he fired at him but the shot did not strike him and instead struck P.W. 5 Nilavva Tukaram Chougule and P.W. 6 Iravva Sidhappa Indi is corroborated by the statements of the other eye-witnesses namely P.W. 5 Nilavva Tukaram Chougule and P.W. 8 Ramgounda Sidhappa Chougule who stated that someone said Kolekar shoot. It is also corroborated by the gunshot injuries of the two victims namely P.W. 5 Nilavva Tukaram Chougule and P.W. 6 Iravva Sidhappa Indi. His aforesaid role has been also clearly defined in the F.I.R. In my view, he (Raghunath Shripati Kolekar) has been rightly convicted by the learned trial Judge. 12. As regards the appellant Bhupal Kallapa Sangave the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant is two fold : (i) that no reliance should be placed on recovery of hunter for there is no evidence to show that it was the same hunter with which the appellant was armed at the time of the incident; the hunter did not have any incriminating marks and the appellant has denied its recovery in his statement under section 313 Cr. P.C. and (ii) that he has only been assigned the role of instigation. His submission is that only the complainant P.W. 4 Shankaryappa Malkappa Chougule has named him. He contends that the evidence of instigation is a weak type of evidence and experience shows that by assigning the role of instigations, often an effort is made to inflate the number of accused persons in criminal cases. His submission is that only the complainant P.W. 4 Shankaryappa Malkappa Chougule has named him. He contends that the evidence of instigation is a weak type of evidence and experience shows that by assigning the role of instigations, often an effort is made to inflate the number of accused persons in criminal cases. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court reported in A.I.R. 1980 S.C. page 628 (Dhanbal another v. State of Tamilnadu)1, and that reported in 1972 Criminal Law Journal, page 1286 (Garib Singh and others v. State of Punjab)2. Since, apart from the evidence of P.W. 4 Shankaryappa Malkappa Chougule no other corroboration is coming forth in support of conviction of the appellant Bhupal Kallapa Sangave, the safer course would be to extend to him the benefit of doubt. 13. The learned Counsel for the appellants also submitted that at any rate the convicion of appellant Raghunath Shripati Kolekar for an offence under section 307 I.P.C. is bad in law because both the victims had sustained injuries on non-vital parts of the body and there was no intention to kill them. I regret that I cannot accede to this contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants. Section 307 I.P.C. reads thus :- "307. Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to (imprisonment for life), or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. (When any person offending under this section is under sentence of (imprisonment for life), he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death). A perusal of this section 307 would show that a person would be culpable under the aforesaid section if he either had the intention to kill someone or knowledge that someone would be killed by his act. A perusal of this section 307 would show that a person would be culpable under the aforesaid section if he either had the intention to kill someone or knowledge that someone would be killed by his act. In my opinion, when appellant Raghunath Shripati Kolekar fired from his gun at P.W. 4 Shankaryappa Malkappa Chougule he had the knowledge that as a result of his firing P.W. 5 Nilavva and P.W. 6 Iravva who were standing behind P.W. 4 Shankaryappa Malkappa could have been killed. As a result of his firing both of them actually sustained grievous firearm injuries. In that view of the matter, I find no merit in the aforesaid submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant. 14. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and partly dismissed. The conviction of appellant Bhupal Kallapa Sangave under section 307/34 I.P.C. is set aside. He is acquitted of the offence under section 307/34 I.P.C. He is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand cancelled and sureties discharged. In case the appellant Bhupal Kallapa Sangave has deposited the fine, the same shall stand refunded to him. Appeal of Raghunath Shripati Kolekar is dismissed. His conviction and sentence under section 307 I.P.C. and under section 27 Arms Act, as ordered by the Court below, is confirmed. As directed by the Court below his substantive sentences shall run concurrently. He is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out his sentence. Appeal partly allowed.