JUDGMENT 1. - The present two appeals arise out of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Merta dated 26.9.1984 passed in Sessions Case No. 61/83. 2. The accused appellant was tried by the learned Sessions Judge for offences under Section 120-B, 302, 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The trial of the accused was conducted in the back-ground that his co-accused Gulab Chand, Pratap Ram, Hari Ram, Baksha Ram were earlier tried by the Court of Sessions Judge, Merta and these accused persons were acquitted. The present appellant was apprehended subsequently. Therefore, a fresh trial was held for this accused. 3. 27 witnesses were examined at the trial and after considering the case of the prosecution the learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that the offence under Sections 120-B, 302 and 307 IPC is not made out against the accused but he was found guilty for offence under Section 324 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. He was sentenced to 2 years R.I. under Section 324 IPC and 1 years R.I. under Section 27 of the Arms Act, A fine of Rs. 200/- was also put against the accused on each of the counts. 4. The learned Sessions Judge observed that the prosecution is not supported by PW 2 Mana Ram, PW 3 Smt. Laxmi, PW 4 Smt. Phulki, PW 5 Madan Lal, PW 6 Rang Lal, PW 7 Madan Singh, PW 8 Smt. Ganga, PW 9 Nathu, PW 16 Badan Singh, PW 18 Dariyav Singh, PW 19 Bhagu Ram and PW 21 Smt. Gopi. These witnesses have turned hostile and, therefore, nothing turned out from the testimony of these witnesses. 5. PW 10 Roopa Ram was not declared hostile but in his testimony this has come that he is not sure whether he had seen the accused Laxman Singh at the scene of occurrence. Looking to the shaky character of the testimony of this witness, this witness was also not believed by the learned trial court. 6. PW 11 Ram Chandra states that inside the Nohra of Pratap gun was fired but who was inside the Nohra he does not know. He has stated that it was the fire made by the accused appellant, which has become effective to Shanker. 6. PW 11 Ram Chandra states that inside the Nohra of Pratap gun was fired but who was inside the Nohra he does not know. He has stated that it was the fire made by the accused appellant, which has become effective to Shanker. When he was confronted with his previous statement Ex.D. 5 he denied that he has given such a statement to the police that he has seen the accused firing. In this back-ground the learned Sessions. Judge has also not placed any reliance to convict the accused for killing Shanker on this witness because he has admitted in his earlier statement Ex.D. 5 that he had not seen the accused firing. 7. Witness PW 12 Rama Ram has admitted before the Court that he cannot say with definiteness whether the accused was the same person who was present at the scene of occurrence. Therefore, his testimony too was not relied upon by the learned trial court. 8. PW 13 Bhagu was found by the learned Sessions Judge to be a witness who has been speaking against his earlier statement. Therefore, when contradicted by his earlier statement this witness was not found to be credible by the learned Sessions Judge and, therefore, his testimony was discarded. 9. Apart from these witnesses there were other three witnesses PW 14 Rajvir Singh, PW 15 Ganpat Ram and PW 17 Hanuman Singh, who had spoken about the incident and rest of the witnesses are Investigating Officer and witnesses of various stages of investigation. 10. The learned Sessions Judge has placed reliance partially on PW 14, PW 15 and PW 17 for convicting the accused under Section 324 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and has discarded their testimony to hold the accused guilty under Section 302 IPC etc. 11. The State has come up in appeal against the acquittal of the accused under Sections 120-B, 302 and 307 IPC and the accused appellant had come up in appeal against his conviction under Section 324 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 12. We have heard the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel appearing for the accused appellant and have also perused the record. 13. 12. We have heard the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel appearing for the accused appellant and have also perused the record. 13. The present appeals are heard against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge in the back-ground that in the earlier trial the co-accused of the present accused appellant Laxman Singh were tried and acquitted. What appears from the testimony of various witnesses is that perhaps both the parties have reached to an understanding and, therefore, most of the witnesses have not spoken in conformity with their earlier statements. If the witnesses have not deposed against the accused and the prosecution story -had remained unsupported by the material witnesses then the testimony of the witnesses who have been relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge has to be seen with caution because major part of the prosecution story has not been supported by most of the witnesses. 14. With this handicap, we examine the State appeal against the acquittal of the accused. 15. When we adjudge the acquittal of the accused under Section 302 IPC then we find that there is no a single witness who can be relied upon to arrive at the conclusion that it was the gun shot fired by the accused which had become effective. 16. PW 13 Bhagu is the witness who had spoken against the accused in terms that there Laxman Singh made a gun fire which hit Shanker. But in the cross-examination this witness was put his previous statement and he has denied almost all parts of his previous statements Ex.D. 7 and Ex.D. 8. When a witness is contradicted with his previous statement on material counts and he is disbelieved by the trial court then in an appeal against acquittal it is not safe to place reliance on the testimony of such witness and in this back-ground the finding of the learned Sessions Judge qua this witness is not liable to be reversed. 17. PW 14 Rajvir Singh has admitted that he does not know as to whose fire became effective on Shanker. 18. PW 15 Ganpat Ram is also not a witness of occurrence and he arrives after the incident had occurred. 19. PW 17 Hanuman Singh admits that he has not seen the accused killing Shanker. 20. 17. PW 14 Rajvir Singh has admitted that he does not know as to whose fire became effective on Shanker. 18. PW 15 Ganpat Ram is also not a witness of occurrence and he arrives after the incident had occurred. 19. PW 17 Hanuman Singh admits that he has not seen the accused killing Shanker. 20. Therefore, we find that there is no convincing evidence on record to connect the accused Laxman Singh to say that it was his gun shot which had became effective in killing Shanker. When there was no convincing evidence on record then it cannot be said that the conclusions arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge were not legally supported. In an appeal against acquittal unless the judgment is perverse the same is not liable to be disturbed and, therefore, we concur with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge so far as they relate to the acquittal of the accused appellant under Sections 120-B, 302 and 307 IPC. 21. Now we take up the appeal of the accused wherein he has challenged his conviction under Section 324 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 22. The learned Sessions Judge has convicted the accused appellant under Section 324 IPC for causing injuries to PW 1 Mohan Ram, PW 2 Mana Ram, PW 3 Smt. Laxmi, PW 4 Smt. Phulki, PW 5 Madan Lal and PW 9 Nathu. For causing injuries to these persons the accused appellant was charged under Section 307 IPC but the nature of the injuries was simple and, therefore, the accused was convicted under Section 324 IPC. Since the injuries were simple we also do not think that there was anything wrong in convicting the accused under Section 324 IPC. From the testimony of the witnesses though it was not clear as to whose fire became effective on Shanker who died inside the Nohra because no body has seen the accused firing inside the Nohra but while the accused was going out of the Nohra he was making fires and at that time these persons received injuries. Therefore, the firing by the accused appellant while he was going out of the Nohra having been deposed by the witnesses, it cannot be said that the witnesses have not seen him making the fires and those fires became effective on the injured. Therefore, the firing by the accused appellant while he was going out of the Nohra having been deposed by the witnesses, it cannot be said that the witnesses have not seen him making the fires and those fires became effective on the injured. Such evidence having come on record, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the accused appellant under Section 324 IPC. We find no reason not to approve the findings of the learned Sessions Judge on this count and, therefore, the conviction of the accused appellant under Section 324 IPC is upheld. 23. The gun was not a licensed gun. The accused appellant unauthorisedly held a gun and fired on the witnesses. Therefore, he was convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Since he was possessing the gun unauthorisedly and used the same for causing injuries to the witnesses, therefore, his conviction as ordered by the learned Sessions Judge under Section 27 of the Arms Act is not liable to be set aside and the same also deserves to be maintained. 24. In the result, the appeal against acquittal filed by the State and the appeal against his conviction filed by the accused appellant have no merit and consequently both the appeals are dismissed. The accused was behind the bars during the trial, therefore, he has already served out the sentence awarded to him. Therefore, he need not be sent to Jail again. *******