JUDGMENT 1. - The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 14-6-1983 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 1/83 by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as below:- Name of accused Convicted under Section Sentence awarded Pali @ Richpal Singh 307 Indian Penal Code 5 years' R.I. & a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to further under go 3 months R.I. 27 Arms Act 6 months' R.I. & a fine of Rs. 50/- in default to further undergo 1 month's imprisonment Raj Singh 364 Indian Penal Code 5 years' R.I. & a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to further undergo 3 months' R.I. 307/34 Indian Penal Code & 307 Indian Penal Code 5 years' R.I. & a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to further undergo 3 months' R.I. 2. By the same judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted two accused, namely Amrit Pal and Teka of the charges framed against them. 3. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows:- (i) On 22-10-1982 at about 1 a.m. in the night P.W. 2 Bogar Singh S/O Munshi Singh gave statement Ex. P/2 to the SHO P.W. 20 Dharsi Ram stating inter alia that on that day, he came from his village to Mandi Kesri Singhpur for seeing Ram Lila and when he was seeing Ram Lila, P.W. 5 Nachhatra Singh was also sitting with him. It was further stated by P.W. 2 Bogar Singh that at about 10 p.m. in the night Raj Singh, .accused appellant and another alleged to be son of Daman Singh to whom he did not know by his name came there and they called P.W. 2 Bogar Singh and thereafter he came outside and they told him that they had to go upto the Bridge of Thada. Thereafter all the three persons went on a motor-cycle and the motor-cycle was being driven at that time by son of Daman Singh. It was further stated in his statement that when they reached near the bridge of Dhanjatia the motor-cycle was stopped. The accused appellant Raj Singh stated that he had seen a bottle of wine there and he went there to see the bottle, but it was not found. It was further stated in his statement that when they reached near the bridge of Dhanjatia the motor-cycle was stopped. The accused appellant Raj Singh stated that he had seen a bottle of wine there and he went there to see the bottle, but it was not found. Thereafter the son of Daman Singh raised a cry and after his voice, the accused appellant Pali alongwith two other persons came there and accused Pali fired shot from pistol towards P.W. 2 Bogar Singh and that shot caused injuries on his stomach and another shot was fired by another person who was with the accused appellant Pali and thereafter P.W. 2 Bogar Singh was thrown away in the river. It was further stated by P.W. 2 Bogar Singh that the accused had old enmity. Accused appellant Raj Singh and son of Daman Singh had brought him there so that he could be killed. (ii) On this report, police registered the case and during investigation P.W. 2 Bogar Singh was medically examined by Dr. P.W. 11 Jaswant Singh and his injury report is Ex. P/ 14. He was X-rayed and his X-ray report is Ex. P/15. (iii) During investigation on 22-10-1982 at about 5.10 a.m. in the morning, statement of P.W. 2 Bogar Singh was got recorded by the Magistrate and the same is Ex. D/1 and after usual investigation, a challan against the four persons was filed by the police. (iv) Vide order dated 1-2-1983, charges were framed against the appellant Pali for offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act and the appellant Raj Singh was charged for offences under Sections 364, 307, and 307/34 Indian Penal Code The other two accused persons namely Amrit Pal Singh and Teka were also charged, but have been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge. (v) In support of the prosecution case as many as 20 witnesses were produced and many documents were got exhibited and after trial, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced both the appellants as stated above while acquitting other two accused persons. (v) In support of the prosecution case as many as 20 witnesses were produced and many documents were got exhibited and after trial, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced both the appellants as stated above while acquitting other two accused persons. (vi) Aggrieved from the said judgment and order, this appeal has been preferred by these accused appellants Pali and Raj Singh (It may be stated here that during pendency of the appeal accused appellant Pali @ Richpal Singh has died and vide order dated 1-8-2000, his appeal has abated.) and now this appeal would be confined only with respect to accused appellant Raj Singh. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant Raj Singh has raised following submissions before this Court : (i) That the statement of P.W. 2 Bogar Singh is only solitary testimony in the present case, which should not be believed in the manner as has been believed by the learned Sessions Judge because the learned Sessions Judge himself has come to the conclusion that he is not reliable witness. (ii) He has further argued that once his statement is full contradictions with his previous statement Ex. P/2 and statement recorded by the Magistrate Ex. D/1 and when his statement has not been believed against the accused Amrit Pal Singh and Teka, it should not have been believed for rest of the accused also. He further prays that the accused appellant Raj Singh be also acquitted of the charges framed against him. 5. Before proceeding further, it may be stated here that injury report of P.W. 2 Bogar Singh is Ex. P/14 which has been proved by P.W. 11 Dr. Jaswant Singh. From perusing Ex. P/14, it appears that he received two gun shot injuries on his body. 6. It would be worth while to point out that the learned Sessions Judge in his judgment dated 14-6-1983 has come to the following conclusions : (i) That the sole witness in the present case is P.W.2 Bogar Singh injured himself and his statement is full of contradictions, omissions and exaggerations. 6. It would be worth while to point out that the learned Sessions Judge in his judgment dated 14-6-1983 has come to the following conclusions : (i) That the sole witness in the present case is P.W.2 Bogar Singh injured himself and his statement is full of contradictions, omissions and exaggerations. (ii) That the witnesses about the incident of Ramlila are P.W. 5 Nachhatra Singh, P.W. 6 Ratan Singh and P.W. 7 Janak Singh and they have been declared hostile and they do not support in any manner the statement of P.W. 2 Bogar Singh and for that incident i.e. of Ramlila place, the only solitary witness remains is P.W. 2 Bogar Singh himself. (iii) That statement of P.W. 2 Bogar Singh cannot be said to be reliable as there are so many inconsistencies in his statement. The learned Sessions Judge has pointed out so many inconsistencies in his statement specially with respect to contradictions which have been found by the learned Sessions Judge in his statement Ex. P/2 and statement recorded by the Magistrate Ex. D/1 and further more in the statement given by him on oath during trial as P.W. 2 Bogar Singh. (iv) Thus, the learned Sessions Judge has placed reliance on some part of statement of P.W. 2 Bogar Singh. 7. So far as various contradictions, omissions and inconsistencies which are found in his statement are concerned, they will be referred to hereinafter. 8. That so far as recording of statement of P.W. 2 Bogar Singh is concerned, the same stands proved by the statements of P.W. 19 Banne Singh and P.W. 20 Dharsi Ram. P.W. 19 Banne Singh states that he recorded statement of P.W. 2 Bogar Singh and he recorded what is stated by him and he recorded the statement as per the direction of P.W. 20 Dharsi Ram, who was the SHO at that time. Thus, statement Ex. P/2 stands proved from the statements of P.W. 19 Banne Singh and P.W. 20 Dharsi Ram. 9. In the statement Ex. P/2 it is clearly mentioned that when P.W. 2 was seeing Ramlila, P.W. 5 Nachhatra Singh was with him and this P.W. 5 Nachhatra Singh has been declared hostile. In this statement Ex. Thus, statement Ex. P/2 stands proved from the statements of P.W. 19 Banne Singh and P.W. 20 Dharsi Ram. 9. In the statement Ex. P/2 it is clearly mentioned that when P.W. 2 was seeing Ramlila, P.W. 5 Nachhatra Singh was with him and this P.W. 5 Nachhatra Singh has been declared hostile. In this statement Ex. P/2, it was stated by P.W. Bogar Singh that at that time, the accused Raj Singh and another alleged to be son of Daman Singh came there to whom he did not recognise him by face or by name. It is further stated in the statement Ex. P/2 that when they reached near the bridge, son of Daman Singh raised voice and upon his voice. accused appellant Pali came there who fired shot on him and another shot was fired by the person who was with the accused Pali. In Ex. P/2, there is no mention of the fact that the accused appellant Raj Singh provoked anybody in any manner. 10. The second feature of Ex. D/1 a statement of P.W. 2 Bogar Singh which was recorded by the Magistrate on 22-10-1982 are as follows:- (i) That when he was seeing Ram Lila, accused appellant Raj Singh and Ajeet Singh S/o Daman Singh called him and took him to tube well. They went there on motorcycle and the motor-cycle was stopped near the bridge Bhurjipura and at that time, Ajeet Singh S/o Daman Singh stated that there was a bottle of wine in the brush and the accused appellant Raj Singh went there to take the bottle, but returned with empty hands, then Ajeet Singh called some boys, then three persons came and amongst others, the accused appellant Pali was also there and at that time, the accused appellant Raj Singh and Ajeet Singh caught hold of hand of P.W. 2 Bogar Singh and thereafter accused appellant Pali fired a shot on him and Ajeet Singh further called another person who was standing with Pali and asked him to fire another shot and he also fired a shot. (ii) The most striking feature of this statement Ex. D/1 is that P.W. 2 Bogar Singh has stated that another person is Ajeet Singh S/O Daman Singh and at the place where the incident took place, the boys were called not by the accused appellant Raj Singh but by the accused Ajeet Singh. (ii) The most striking feature of this statement Ex. D/1 is that P.W. 2 Bogar Singh has stated that another person is Ajeet Singh S/O Daman Singh and at the place where the incident took place, the boys were called not by the accused appellant Raj Singh but by the accused Ajeet Singh. The fact that accused appellant Raj Singh caught hold of P.W. 2 Bogar Singh is not found in the previous statement Ex. P/2. (iii) Another striking feature is that in both the statements, Ex. P/2 and Ex. D/1 there is no mention of the fact that the accused appellant Raj Singh fired any shot on the person of P.W. 2 Bogar Singh. In Ex. D/1, another person is mentioned as Ajeet Singh S/o Daman Singh. In the present case challan was filed against the accused Amrit Pal, Raj Singh, Teka and Pali. The name of father of the accused Teka is Darshan Singh. Therefore, he does not appear to be Ajeet Singh. In his statement recorded in the Court P.W. 2 Bogar Singh tried to explain that Ajeet Singh is also known as Tek Singh. In Ex. P/2, it has been stated that the person who was with the accused appellant Raj Singh was son of Daman Singh. In the statement Ex. D/1, it is mentioned that Ajeet Singh is the son of Daman Singh. In the statement recorded in the Court, it has been stated by P.W. 2 Bogar Singh that when Tek Singh raised voice, Pali, Amrit Pal Singh and three persons came there. He has specifically mentioned the name of Amrit Pal though in the statement recorded as Ex. P/2 and Ex. D/1 no such name was mentioned by P.W. 2 Bogar Singh. In the cross- examination, P.W. 2 Bogar Singh states that he knows Tek Singh from the very beginning. While in the statement Ex. P/2, he says that he did not know son of Daman Singh by face and by name. Now he tries to improve by saying that Tek Singh is the grandson of Daman Singh. Whether Tek Singh is the grand son or son of Daman Singh, the question is that when he was known to him, why name was not mentioned by him in the statement Ex. P/2 and why it was not mentioned specifically in Ex. D/1. Now he tries to improve by saying that Tek Singh is the grandson of Daman Singh. Whether Tek Singh is the grand son or son of Daman Singh, the question is that when he was known to him, why name was not mentioned by him in the statement Ex. P/2 and why it was not mentioned specifically in Ex. D/1. In the statement recorded in the Court, he further stated that he recognizes Amrit Pal also but he could not have stated his name either in the statement Ex. P/2 and Ex.. D/1. In Ex. P/2, it is stated that these two persons asked him to go away while in the statement recorded in the Court, it is stated that they asked him to take tea. In the statement Ex. P/2, the fact that Raj Singh caught hold of P.W. 2 Bogar Singh is not found but this fact has been stated in the statement recorded in the Court and he has been contradicted on this point. This is a material contradiction on this point. (iv) Thus, from the above discussions, it is very clear that the statement of P.W. 2 Raj Singh is full of contradictions and omissions not only on one point, but on so many points. In these circumstances without corroboration, the statement of P.W. 2 Bogar Singh could not be believed. 11. Here, I am dealing with the appeal only with respect to accused appellant Raj Singh and not in respect of accused appellant Pali. So far as statement of P.W. 2 Bogar Singh against accused appellant Pali is concerned, there is a some consistency in his statement, but so far as statement of P.W. 2 Bogar Singh against the present appellant Raj Singh and other two accused Amrit Pal and Tek Singh is concerned, there are inconsistencies in his statement and the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted these two accused, namely, Amrit Pal and Tek Singh on the basis of the inconsistencies and in my considered view, the case of accused appellant Raj Singh should not stand on different footing than that of Tek Singh and Amrit Pal. 12. Since, the statement of solitary witness P.W. 2 Bogar Singh is full of contradictions and omissions, therefore, as a Rule corroboration is required. 12. Since, the statement of solitary witness P.W. 2 Bogar Singh is full of contradictions and omissions, therefore, as a Rule corroboration is required. The original three witnesses P.W. 5 Nachhatra Singh, P.W. 6 Ratan Singh and P.W. 7 Janak Singh have been declared hostile and they do not support the statement of P.W. 2 Bogar Singh. Hence, in these circumstances, the so called remaining statement of P.W. 2 Bogar Singh should also not be believed so far as present appellant Raj Singh is concerned. 13. Looking to the above discussions, two things have come out : (i) that when P.W. 2 Bogar Singh was seeing Ram Lila and he was taken from the place of Ram Lila, the motorcycle was being driven by the alleged son of Daman Singh and not by accused appellant Raj Singh and after reaching on the spot, some other person were also called by another person alleged to be son of Daman Singh and not by accused Raj Singh and thereafter accused appellant Pali came there and fired shot. (ii) that statement of P.W. 2 on the point that when he was fired by accused appellant Pali, appellant Raj Singh also caught hold of him cannot be accepted in view of the fact that this statement is not found in Ex. P/2. 14. Thus the case of prosecution to say on the above evidence that the accused appellant Raj Singh kidnapped P.W. 2 Bogar Singh with an intention that he might be murdered, cannot be accepted and the findings of the learned Sessions Judge by which the accused appellant Raj Singh was convicted for offence under Section 364 Indian Penal Code are liable to be set aside. 15. So far as findings of learned Sessions Judge by which the accused appellant Raj Singh was convicted for offence under Section 307 and 307/34 Indian Penal Code are concerned, they cannot be accepted for the simple reason that in earlier statement Ex. P/2; there is no mention of the fact that the accused appellant Raj Singh caught hold of hand of P.W. 2 Bogar Singh and also in Ex. P/2 there is no mention that he helped accused. Pali in throwing P.W. 2 Bogar Singh into the river. P/2; there is no mention of the fact that the accused appellant Raj Singh caught hold of hand of P.W. 2 Bogar Singh and also in Ex. P/2 there is no mention that he helped accused. Pali in throwing P.W. 2 Bogar Singh into the river. Thus, this accused appellant is also entitled to be acquitted of all the charges framed against him and the findings of learned Sessions Judge whereby accused appellant Raj Singh was convicted are liable to be set aside. 16. In the Result:- 1. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal of the accused appellant Raj Singh is allowed and the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Sri Ganganagar dated 14-6-1983 are set aside and so far as accused appellant Raj Singh is concerned, he is acquitted of the charges framed against him. 2. Since, the accused appellant Raj Singh is on bail, his bail bonds are hereby cancelled. 3. Since the accused appellant Pali has died his appeal stands abated. Thus, this appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Order accordingly. *******