JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.12.1981 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh convicting Raghuveer Singh of offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentencing him to 2 years R.l. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment to further undergo one year's R.l. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 2.6.1979 at about 8 p.m. a telephonic information was received that a quarrel has taken place on the shop of one 'mistri'. The Head Constable, Suman Ali proceeded on the spot. He informed that Makhan Singh has sustained 5 injuries and he has been taken to the hospital. The statement of Makhan Singh was recorded in the hospital. He stated that at about 7.30 p.m. he went to the shop of Balveer Singh for repairing the light of the tractor. On the shop of Balveer Singh, Rahuveer Pandit, Vichitra Singh & Tara Singh were sitting. They were armed with pistols. He asked Balveer to repair the light of the tractor. While the accused Raghuveer Pandit was repairing the light of the tractor, he deposed that he was having some dispute with Jora Singh and, therefore, he should be killed. Thereafter, Raghuveer Pandit fired the pistol hitting on his chest. He further stated that the Vichtra Singh and Tara Singh fired on his meternal uncle Kaka Singh causing injury on his head. Tara Singh inflicted lathi blow on him. Thereafter, Tara Singh and Vichtra Singh ran away. The pistol of Raghuveer Pandit was snatched which was later on handed-over to Ramjas, A.S.I. He also disclosed that on the spot Balveer Singh, Jagga Singh, Major Singh & Jeet Singh were also there. He was having enemity with Jora Singh. He further stated that Jora Singh was friendly with Raghuveer and, therefore, o. instructions of Jora Singh, Raghuveer fired on him. On this information police registered a case of offence under Section 307 and 307/34 I.P.C. and proceeded with investigation. 3. The Police submitting a chargesheet against four accused persons namely Tara Singh, Bikar Singh, Jora Singh and the appellant Raghuveer. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and produced certain documents. The trial court having found number of infirmities in the prosecution case has acquitted the accused Tara Singh, Bikar Singh and Jora Singh. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and produced certain documents. The trial court having found number of infirmities in the prosecution case has acquitted the accused Tara Singh, Bikar Singh and Jora Singh. However, he convicted the appellant Raghuveer on the basis of the testimony of injured Makhan Singh P.W./4. 4. Mr. Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has pointed out that there are number of infirmities in the prosecution case. He has further submitted that one of the accused Tara Singh has sustained 4 injuries simple in nature caused by blunt object. He further pointed out that another accused Bikar Singh also sustained 22 injuries in the same incident and one injury out of 22 injuries have been proved grievous in nature. On the basis of this fact, he contended that the said injuries have not been explained by the prosecution. He has also invited my attention towards certain observation of the trial court wherein the learned Judge has said that the complainant party also gave beating to the accused persons. On the other hand learned Addl. P.P. submits that so far as the accused Raghuveer is concerned, there is ample evidence to show that the pistol was fired by him hitting Makhan Singh. The statement of Makhan Singh is corroborated by the medical evidence. Thus the submission of learned Addl. P.P. is that the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 I.PC. is perfectly legal and does not call for any interference. 5. I have considered the rival contentions. It is not in dispute that accused Tara Singh sustained 4 injures and the accused Bikar Singh has sustained as many as 22 injuries and one of which is grievous in nature. The injuries cannot be said to be self inflicted. It has emerged from the prosecution evidence that Makhan Singh was armed with stick. The learned trial Judge has observed that looking to the facts of the case, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the complainant party in order to save themselves from the beating due to the accused persons tried to show their presence on the spot. Be that as it may as the prosecution has failed to explain injuries of the person of the two accused persons, it is not possible to know the genesis of the incident. Be that as it may as the prosecution has failed to explain injuries of the person of the two accused persons, it is not possible to know the genesis of the incident. In view of this and further fact that the trial court itself has found large number of discrepancies in the prosecution case, the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 I.P.C. is not sustainable. 6. Consequently, this appeal is allowed and the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 I.P.C. is set-aside and he is acquitted from the said charges. The Bail bonds furnished by the appellant stands cancelledAppeal Allowed-Conviction Set-Aside. *******