JUDGMENT : Pradipta Ray, J. - The Petitioner who has been convicted u/s 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year has filed the is revision challenging the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Courts below. 2. The prosecution case in short is: On September 6, 1993 at about 11 A.M. Alok Kumar Tripathy, the injured was sitting on the front varandah of his house facing towards the main road of the village. At that time he saw the accused moving with a gun in 'day time. When the injured asked the accused why he was moving with an air gun in day time, the accused got annoyed and shot at him. The pellet hit the thigh of the injured causing bleeding injury. The incident was not immediately reported. The injured waited for his elder brother who came home at about 4.30 P.M. Bearing about the incident the elder brother took the injured to the Police Out Post to lodge information. 3. The accused denied the allegations. 4. The prosecution examined as many as six witnesses including the injured and two eye witnesses in support of the prosecution case. Although the accused was charged u/s 307, I.P.C. both the Courts found that the charged u/s 307, I.P.C. was not established but convicted the accused u/s 324, I.P.C. 5. In a criminal trial the prosecution has to establish the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case although the allegation is that the accused shot from his air gun, the air gun has not been seized. The bullet which was stated to have been seized has not been exhibited. Both the Courts below have found the accused guilty only on the basis of the oral evidence of P.Ws. 1,3 and 4. 6. The vital connection between the offence alleged and the accused is missing in the present case. As the air gun has not been seized and the pellet has not been exhibited, there is nothing excepting the oral evidence of P. Ws. 1,3 and 4 to show that the shot was fired from an air gun by the accused. Moreover, there are also some vital discrepancies in the oral evidence which have been ignored by the Courts below. P.W. 3 stated that the accused was moving on a motor cycle and left the place by the motor cycle. 1,3 and 4 to show that the shot was fired from an air gun by the accused. Moreover, there are also some vital discrepancies in the oral evidence which have been ignored by the Courts below. P.W. 3 stated that the accused was moving on a motor cycle and left the place by the motor cycle. Neither the injured nor the other eye witness P.W. 4 stated that the accused was moving on a motor cycle. Rather from their evidence it appears that, according to them, the accused was walking around. P.W. 3 has not stated that P.W. 4 was present at the time of the occurrence. P.W. 4 has clearly stated that No. other person was present at that time. In the examination-in-chief P.W. 4 has claimed that in his presence P.W. 1 asked the accused why he was moving with the gun and the accused shot at P.W. 1. In the cross-examination he stated that when he came out of the shop he saw injury on P.W. 1. From the said statement it cannot be said that P.W. 4 saw the accused firing at the injured. It is also significant to note that P.Ws. 3 and 4 did not tell anybody else about the incident. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 6) has admitted in his evidence: It is a fact that the gun has not been seized so it is difficult to say whether the pellet seized by me is from the gun used by the accused. The Doctor has not said definitely that the injury was caused by a pellet shot from the air gun. 7. Although the scope in a revision is limited but it is' well settled that unless link between the alleged crime and the accused is established beyond reasonable doubt the accused cannot be held guilty. When the Courts below held an accused guilty without the vital link, such finding is to be treated as without basis and in such case, even a concurrent finding can be interfered with. It is also well known that the benefit of doubt is to be given in favor of the accused in a criminal trial. Both the Courts below failed to appreciate the distinction between "has committed" and "may have committed". In a criminal trial accused cannot be convicted on the suspicion that the accused might have committed the crime. 8. It is also well known that the benefit of doubt is to be given in favor of the accused in a criminal trial. Both the Courts below failed to appreciate the distinction between "has committed" and "may have committed". In a criminal trial accused cannot be convicted on the suspicion that the accused might have committed the crime. 8. When there is nothing conclusive to establish the vital connection between the crime and the accused, the Courts below have committed material error in exercise of their jurisdiction in not giving the said benefit of doubt in favour of the accused. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the judgments of the Courts below are set aside. Accused is acquitted of the charge u/s 324 of the I.P.C. As the order of conviction has been set aside the bail bond, if any, stands discharged. The Criminal Revision is allowed. Final Result : Allowed