I. M. QUDDUSI, J. This Criminal Ap peal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 31-10-1980 passed in S. T No. 213 of 1980 by learned Vllth Addl. Sessions Judge Farrukhabad convicting and sentencing the appellant for a term of five years R. I. under Section 307, IPC. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A. G. A for the State and have perused the record. 3. Necessary facts draped in brievity are that a First Information Report was lodged by one Raghunath on 15-2-1979 at 7. 45 a. m. at P. S. Kayamganj district, Far rukhabad alleging therein that he had kept the mother of appellant-Khushiram since 5 years due to which Khushiram-appellant remains inimical to him. Besides this he is also a witness against Khushiram-appel lant in an incident which took place at the house of Bhojraj of his locality. Khushiram-appellant had insisted a num ber of times that he should not give evidence but he did not agree with the same. At about 6. 00 a. m. on that day, he was going to market after taking milk, the appellant-Khushiram at that time had hid den himself behind neem-tree and when he crossed that tree, Khushiram fired upon him causing injuries on his left fore arm. At that time, one Smt. Chandawati wife of Dev Singh who had gone there to bring water had also received pellet injury on her left upper arm. On hearing sound, the witnesses of the locality, namely, Ram Singh son of Bhojraj, Dev Singh son of Lakhan Singh and Prem son of Mushi Lal arrived at the scene and challenged Khushiram-appellant who ran away towards west saying that in case, he would not leave his mother then this would hap pen. A case at Crime No. 78 of 1979 under Section 307, IPC was registered and the investigation was done. After investiga tion of the case, charge sheet was sub mitted against the appellant for prosecu tion of the offence punishable under Sec tion 307, IPC. P. W. 1 Smt. Chanda Devi, P. W. 2 Deo Singh, P. W. 3 Ramesh Chandra Gupta, P. W. 4 Raghunath, P. W. 5 Ram Singh and P. W. 6 Satish Chandra Singh were examined. P. W. 1 Smt. Chanda Devi, P. W. 2 Deo Singh, P. W. 3 Ramesh Chandra Gupta, P. W. 4 Raghunath, P. W. 5 Ram Singh and P. W. 6 Satish Chandra Singh were examined. Medical Officer, PHC, Kaimganj examined Smt. Chanda Devi on the same day i. e. 15-2-1979 and following injuries were found on the person of Chanda Devi P. W. I: (1): One G. S. W. of Entry on front of the left upper arm, middle part of size 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm x muscle deep. Margins of the wound is irregular and inverted. Oozing of fresh blood from the wound present. Adv. X-ray for the detection of pellet. 4. In the opinion of doctor, the injury was caused by some projectile fire arm and is simple in nature. 5. Raghunath-injured was also ex amined on 15-2-1979 by the same doctor and he found the following injuries on his person: (1): Nine G. S. W. of entry on the back of left upper arm, lower part in an area of 15 cm x 9 cm size of each wound 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm x muscle deep. Margins of the wounds are irregular and inverted. Blackening and tattooing of the skin around" the wounds absent. Advised X-ray for the detection of pellets. Oozing of fresh blood from the wound present. (2): 35 G. S. W. of entry on the back inner and ou ter aspect of left fore arm in an area of 17 cm x 12 cm size of each is 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm x muscle deep to 1/2 cm x 1/4 muscle deep. Mar gins of the wounds are irregular inverted. Oozing of the fresh blood from the wounds present. Advised X-ray for the detection of pel lets. In the opinion of doctor, both the injuries were caused by projectile fire arm and are simple in nature. 6. P. W. 1. Smt. Chanda Devi stated in her examination-in-chief that although a fire was made towards her and she was injured by that fire also but she could not see as to who had actually fired on her and the pellets came towards her right arm. She was declared hostile. In her cross-ex amination, she had stated that she does not know the accused. P. W. 2 Deo Singh is the husband of P. W. 1 Smt. Chanda Devi injured. She was declared hostile. In her cross-ex amination, she had stated that she does not know the accused. P. W. 2 Deo Singh is the husband of P. W. 1 Smt. Chanda Devi injured. He has also stated that his wife received pellet injury but she did not see as to who fired upon her. He was also declared hostile. P. W. 3 is the Medical Of ficer who had medically examined the in jured persons. P. W. 4 Raghunath is the informant. He has stated in his statement the same thing as he had narrated in the F. I. R. and proved the F. I. R. But in the cross-examination, he has changed the prosecution story and stated that Khushiram-appellant had taken loan from him and when he demanded the money, the appellant told him that he would shot him. He has staled in his cross- examina tion that the person who had fired upon him was standing behind the neem tree and he could not see the distance from where the fire was made. He has also stated that Khushiram-appellant has never attacked on him before. He has further stated that he was going towards north while as the the person who had fired on him was standing towards the south. P. W. 5 Ram Singh stated that he had not seen Khushiram. When he arrived at the scene, he found Raghunath and one lady there. Raghunath was having a gun shot injury and the lady had also received pellet injury. He was also declared hostile. P. W. 6was the sub-inspec tor and I. O. of the case who had inves tigated the case. 7. In the instant case, P. W. 1 Smt. Chanda Devi injured has become hostile. She had also denied to have stated any thing in her statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. against the appellant- Khushiram. P. W. 2 Deo Singh is the husband of P. W. 1. He has also denied to have given any state ment as recorded under Section 161, Cr. P. C. against the appellant. He was also declared hostile. P. W. 5 Ram Singh had also denied that anything was asked by the Investigating Officer from him. He was also declared hostile. He has also denied to have given any state ment as recorded under Section 161, Cr. P. C. against the appellant. He was also declared hostile. P. W. 5 Ram Singh had also denied that anything was asked by the Investigating Officer from him. He was also declared hostile. There were only four witnesses examined including injured, out of which three including injured witness have turned hostile and the first informant of the incident has changed the prosecu tion story as narrated by him in the F. I. R. In his cross-examination he has stated that a person who had fired on him was standing near the neem tree and he cannot say that as to how much distance was there, meaning thereby that he did not know the dis tance from where the fire was made. When he did not know the distance, how can he say that the person who had fired he was Khushiram- appellant. Had he seen Khushiram-appellant, he would have certainly given the distance from where the fire was made by him. Moreover, he has stated in his statement that the person who fired upon him was standing near the neem tree. He has further stated in his cross-examination that he did not know whether Chanda Devi received pellet in jury on her right arm while as he had mentioned in the F. I. R. that Chanda Devi had got pellet injury on her left arm. Further, in his cross-examination again, he has stated that the person who fired upon him was towards the south. At that time also, he did not name Khushiram-appellant. In the case of Bhagirath v. State of M. P. 1976 UPLBEC1, the Apex Court has held that that the prosecution cannot make out a new case, different from the prosecution case set up in the First information Report. In this case also, learned Sessions Judge has in his judgment indicated that Khushiram-appellant was not dissatisfied with the informant Raghunath as he had kept his mother with him. In this case also, learned Sessions Judge has in his judgment indicated that Khushiram-appellant was not dissatisfied with the informant Raghunath as he had kept his mother with him. The motive wiiich has been given in the F. I. R. is that the mother of the appellant-Khushiram was the kept of Raghunath- informant P. W. 4 and due to this reason, he had inimical term with Raghunath while in the state ment of Raghunath- P. W 4 he has stated that Khushiram-appellant had taken money on loan from him and when he demanded, then he threatened him that he will shot him. This creates a reasonable doubt about the involvement of the appel lant in the crime in question and as such, the appellant is entitled to get the benefit of doubt. Moreover, none of the prosecu tion witnesses have stated that there was an intention of the appellant to kill the informant P. W. 4 or the lady Smt. Chanda Devi P. W. 1. 8. In view of the above facts and cir cumstances the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt and thus, the appellant is entitled to get the benefit of doubt. 9. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned judg ment and order dated 31-10-1980 passed by Vllth Additional Sessions Judge, Far rukhabad in S. T No. 213 of 1980, is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge. His bail bonds and sureties are discharged. Appeal allowed. .