SANGALAD, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated ( 2 ) 11. 1998 passed in S. C. No. 94 of 1996 convicting the Appellant-accused for the offences punishable under Section 304 II and sentencing him to undergo S. I. for 3 years and also S. I for 3 years for the offence punishable under Section 27 (1) of the Arms Act. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The story of the prosecution in nutshell is as follows:- ( 3 ) THE Appellant hereinafter referred to as Accused. ( 4 ) THE Accused was working as A. R. S. I at D. A. R. , Dharwad andhe was instruction for the trainees. On 20. 10. 1994, there was a rehearsal on the eve of 'police Martyr's Day' between 6 a. m. to 7 a. m. It was held at the police parade ground in the Headquarters of dharwad. At about 6. 50 a. m. or 6. 55 a. m, the accused fired at a mad dog which came to that ground with 0. 22 rifle. But the shot missed the dog and hit the cyclist in his chest. On account of this, there was instantaneous death. Immediately the Appellant himself along with others took him to the Civil Hospital, Dharwad. The deceased boy was aged about 12 years. He was also none other than the son of colleague of this accused. It is also alleged that the accused came into possession of the rifle unlawfully and used it unlawfully. As such, the offences as alleged by the prosecution have been committed. ( 5 ) A complaint was filed with Suburb police, who registered acase in Crime No. 345/94 for the aforestated offences and the FIR was dispatched. ( 6 ) PW 27 is the I. O. who has filed the chargesheet after completing the investigation. ( 7 ) PWS 1 to 27 are examined and Exs P1 to P18 are produced and M. Os 1 to 12 are marked for the prosecution. For the defence on witness is examined muchless any document is marked. ( 8 ) AFTER hearing the arguments on both the sides, the Lower court has come to the conclusion that it is this accused who is responsible for the commission of the offence. As such, he has been found guilty for the aforestated offence. For the defence on witness is examined muchless any document is marked. ( 8 ) AFTER hearing the arguments on both the sides, the Lower court has come to the conclusion that it is this accused who is responsible for the commission of the offence. As such, he has been found guilty for the aforestated offence. ( 9 ) P. W. 12 is the eye witness for this incident. P. W. 1 is none other than the father of the deceased and P. W2 is the mother of the deceased. According to the prosecution, on coming to know of the unfortunate incident, they rushed to the spot and found that their son was dead with bullet injury. ( 10 ) MR. B. R. Patil, learned Counsel for the Accused has strenuously submitted that the evidence of PW. 12 is not worthy of any credence as it suffers from infirmities. His main contention is that if the version of PW2 is believed, the evidence of PW. 12 is shattered by the prosecution witness. It is the case of the prosecution that it is PW12 who fired first at the mad dog but it some how escaped This accused who was present at the spot, taunted PW12 stating that he was not a good shooter. So saying he snatched the rifle from his hands and fired at the mad dog. To his ill-luck also, the dog escaped but boy died. ( 11 ) THE contention of Mr. B. R. Patil is that according to PW12, two rounds were fired. If that is the case, the Investigating Officer, must have seized to blank cartridges. The version of PW 12 is that there was firing twice and the version of PW2 is that there was firing only once. Hence there is diametrical opposite evidence led by the prosecution. ( 12 ) I think there is great force in the submission of Mr. B. R. Patil to the effect that the Investigating Officer should have seized two blank cartridges. For a moment, if much reliance is placed on the testimony of eye witnesses, then this submission appears to have been greater force. The prosecution says right from the inception that it was PW 12 who fired first and for the second time, it was this accused It is not the case of the prosecution that the incident has taken at some other place. The prosecution says right from the inception that it was PW 12 who fired first and for the second time, it was this accused It is not the case of the prosecution that the incident has taken at some other place. It is very much occurred within the area of the police ground and that too when they were rehearsing for 'police Martyr's' day. Everyone was well versed of the consequences and rnore so, the Investigating Officer could not have omitted to ilr Shekhappa Basavanneppa Haiasur vs State 4549 seize two blank cartridges. Even assuming that the story of the prosecution is accepted in to to excluding this, the case of the prosecution does not advance an inch further. According to the evidence of PW2 the fire has taken place only once in view of the seizure of only one blank cartridges. In view of these two versions which are on the record namely if the version of PW2 is accepted, then the story of the prosecution that this accused fired for the second time falls to the ground. If the version of PW12 is accepted, the omission to seize second blank cartridges weeds out the root of the prosecution. Under the said circumstances, naturally doubt arises. It is also fn the evidence of PW2 that she heard sound only once. If that is to be belteved, it is the case of the prosecution that PW12 has fired first. ( 13 ) IT is also pertinent to note that PWs 10 and 11 were the eye witnesses. They are none otherthan the Police personnel. When they were -eye witnesses and when they were very much present for the parade, naturally the truth must have been come out. When they were not supported to the case of the prosecution, it is futile exercise for the prosecution. Naturally of the two circumstances which is in favour of the accused is to be accepted. In my opinion the benefit of doubt has to go to the Appellant. In view of these observations, the Appeal is allowed and the conviction is set-aside and the appellant is set at liberty. The bail bond executed shall stand cancelled. --- *** --- .