Judgment I.P.Singh, J. 1. All the appellants have been convicted under sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years. Appellant nos. 1, 3 and 4, namely, Hridayanand Yadav, Ramabadan Yadav and Dipty Yadav have been further convicted under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Similarly appellants no. 5, 7 and 8, namely, Ramadhar Yadav, Ramlayak Yadav and Ramanand Yadav have been convicted under section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Appellants, namely, Hirdayanand Yadav, Rambadan Yadav, Dipty Singh, Lal Bahadur Singh, Raghubir Singh, Vijaya Singh and Janardan Singh have further been convicted under section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. However, the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant Srikrishna Singh gave his fardbeyan on 6.4.1978 at 10 PM. in the injured condition and stated that in the evening at about 7.30 PM. he was sitting in his Khaiihan located in the south of the village, along with Sheonarair Sinnh yadav Suresh Sinha, Sheoji yadav and were chatting among them. In the meantime 30-40 persons variously armed with deadly weapons came in the Khalihan and began to pick up wheat bundles kept there. Since he and other persons sitting there made Hulla and flashed their torch and asked as to why they were doing so, appellant Hridyanand Yadav, Rambadan Yadav, Dipty Yadav of the same village else in the mob and were armed with country made gun began to fire causing injury to the informant and other persons sitting in the Khaiihan. It is said that on their Hulla and also hearing the sound of firing villagers assembled and appellants began to flee away among whom he identified appellant Hridaya Nand Yadav, Ram Badan Yadav, Dipti Yadav, Ramadhar Yadav, Raghubir Yadav, Vijay Yadav, Kaushal Yadav, Jamadar Yadav, Ramadhar Yadav, Ramlayak Yadav and Ramnami Yadav of the same village. It is said that the appellant were armed with country made gun except Ramadhar and Ramlayak Yadav and Ramnami Yadav who were armed with Bhala. It is said that on Hulla Jagdish Yadav, Ramprabesh Yadav, Sheoparsan Yadav and other persons had reached there and saw the occurrence. It is said that the appellant were armed with country made gun except Ramadhar and Ramlayak Yadav and Ramnami Yadav who were armed with Bhala. It is said that on Hulla Jagdish Yadav, Ramprabesh Yadav, Sheoparsan Yadav and other persons had reached there and saw the occurrence. It is also said that the informant and the other persons sitting in the Khaiihan tried to conceal them In rnids of wheat bundles and could save their life. It is also said that due to old enmity and litigations going with the appellants this occurrence was committed by them. On the basis of this fardbeyan F..I.R. was drawn up. After investigation charge sheet was submitted against the appellants. Thereafter cognizance was taken and trial concluded with the resuft as stated above. 3. The appellants pleaded not guilty and have stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. 4. The prosecution to prove its case has examined altogether 9 witnesses. P.W.1, Ramprabesh Yadav, is the father of the informant. P.W.2, Sheoji Singh Yadav, P.W.4, Suresh Singh, and P.W. 5, Sheo Narain Singh are the injured and eye witnesses of the occurrence. P.W.3, Jagdish Yadav, is another eye witness. P.W.6, Gorakh Dusadh is a seizure list witness. P.W.7 is the informant himself. RW.8, Murat Ram is a formal witness. P.W.9 is I.O. 5. P.Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 5 are said to have received injuries at the instance of the appellants. P.W.5 is also an witness to the occurrence. The rests are formal witnesses. On perusal of entire evidence, facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the prosecution version is that the appellants and other 30-40 in number came to the Khaiihan of the informant at about 7.30 P.M. They started removing wheat bundles and on protest against this action it is said that the appellants used fire arms causing injuries to P.Ws. 2, 4 and 5. Further case of the prosecution is that as per the evidence they identified the two appellants in the light of torch light. They were also seen by the villagers who came on Hulla. The injured claimed to have received injuries by gun shots. It is pertinent to note that doctor who in the facts and circumstances of the case who was an important witness was not examined to verify the injuries as alleged to have been received by P.Ws. 6. They were also seen by the villagers who came on Hulla. The injured claimed to have received injuries by gun shots. It is pertinent to note that doctor who in the facts and circumstances of the case who was an important witness was not examined to verify the injuries as alleged to have been received by P.Ws. 6. The prosecution in order to prove the injury examined an Advocate clerk, P.W.8 who testified injury report issued by the doctor. The trial court has relied upon the evidence of P.W. 8 which does not appear to be a healthy practice. If doctor was not available even after efforts, reasons for his non-availability should have been stated and any other doctor of Arrah Sadar Hospital familiar with the writing of the doctor who examined the injured should have been examined so that he could have also given his expert opinion on the injury report by that way court could have come to the conclusion that whether oral evidence of the witnesses are corroborative with the injuries recorded by the doctor, which has not done in this case. Even if injuries report is said to be proved but the nature of injury and cause of the same could not be ascertained. From this witness at best prosecution could prove that P.Ws. received some injuries, in this circumstances prosecution could not make out a case under sections 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code against any of the appellants. Assuming that if the appellants had intention to kill the members of the prosecution party they had opportunity to repeat their action as they were in large number 30-40 and were variously armed as alleged. 7. The prosecution has made efforts to put forth evidence that parties were in inimical terms and in past some litigations were taken place between them. In such situation it does not appear convincing that the appellants would come at the spot to take part in the incident, so as to give opportunity to their opponent to identify them and to get a case registered against them; particularly it is said that miscreants have gone there in large number. In such situation it does not appear convincing that the appellants would come at the spot to take part in the incident, so as to give opportunity to their opponent to identify them and to get a case registered against them; particularly it is said that miscreants have gone there in large number. It has been pointed out that though it is the case of the prosecution that a large number of villagers had also assembled there and had seen the occurrence but none of them came to depose before the court and no reason for non-examination of any independent witness has been put forth by the prosecution. All the witnesses to the factum are interested and related and are inimical to the appellants. 8. Thus from the facts and circumstances it appears that the charges against the appellants could not be established beyond all reasonable doubts and for the reasons above the appellants are at least entitled to benefit of doubt. Accordingly they are acquitted to their char- ges levelled against them. The conviction and sentence passed by the trial court is set aside. They are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. 9. In the result this appeal is allowed.