JUDGMENT R. L. Khurana, J. (Oral):-The above noted two appeals which have arisen out of the judgment dated 5.2.2001 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla passed in sessions trial No. 33-S/7 of 1997 are being disposed of by this single judgment. 2. The appellant Rajesh alias Bittu in criminal appeal No. 109 of 2001 (hereinafter referred to as A-l) stands convicted by the learned trial Judge for the offence under Section 307, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default of payment of fine, he has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months. 3. The appellant Attar Singh in criminal Appeal No. 80 of 2001 (hereinafter referred to as A-2) has been convicted for the offence under Section 323 and 341, Indian Penal Code. Upon such conviction, he has been sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 323, Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, he has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month. He has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 341, Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, he has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of fifteen days. The two substantive sentences of imprisonment imposed upon him on the two counts have been directed to run concurrently. 4. Briefly stated, the prosecution story is this PW-I Ram Lal is a resident of village Gagna. On 6.3.1997 at about 8.00 P.M. when he was present in his house, A-l came to him and asked him that S/Shri Attar Singh, Mohan Lal and Bagu etc. were sitting at his place and that they desire that he (PW-I) should join them. PW-I went to the place where A-l and A-2 alongwith other persons were sitting and enjoying their drinks. PW-I Ram Lal joined them. At about 9.00 P.M. A-l and A-2 with the intention of killing PW-I started giving him beatings. He was dragged outside the house by A-l and A-2. PW-I went to the place where A-l and A-2 alongwith other persons were sitting and enjoying their drinks. PW-I Ram Lal joined them. At about 9.00 P.M. A-l and A-2 with the intention of killing PW-I started giving him beatings. He was dragged outside the house by A-l and A-2. Thereafter A-l is alleged to have brought the sword from inside the house and he aimed a blow on the neck of PW-I Ram Lal. Such blow was stopped by PW-I Ram Lal with his right hand as a result of which he received an injury on his right hand. S/Shri Mohan Lal and Bagu tried to intervene and save PW-I Ram Lal, however, A-l and A-2 continued with their blows with the sword. Such blows hit PW-I Ram Lal on his legs and other parts of his body. As a result of injury, PW-I Ram Lal fell down unconscious. He was taken to the hospital. He regained conscious after 8-10 days and on the basis of his statement made to the police (Ex. PW-I/A) under Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure, a case under Section 307, read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code came to be registered vide F.I.R. Ex. PW 14/A. 5. During the course of investigation, PW-I Ram Lal was subjected to medical examination. Four incise injuries alleged to have been caused with sharp edged weapon were found on his person. Out of these four injuries three were opined to be of grievous nature while one was opined to be of simple nature. The investigating Officer took into possession the blood stained cover of the quilt, blood stained earth, grass and stone from the spot. Kirpa Ram, father of A-1 is alleged to have produced a blood stained jacket Ex. P-10 belonging to A-l. A-2 is alleged to have produced his blood stained Pajama and shirt before the investigating officer. In addition, the investigating Officer also took into possession an agreement Ex. PW 3/C and some compromise deed alleged to have been arrived at between the parties after the occurrence. 6. After the completion of the investigation, A-l and A-2 alongwith eight other persons, namely, S/Shri Chet Ram, jai Ram, Sohan Singh, Durga Singh, Mohan Singh, Rai Singh, Sita Ram and Swaran Singh were sent up for trial for the offence under Section 307 and 201,read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code. 7. 6. After the completion of the investigation, A-l and A-2 alongwith eight other persons, namely, S/Shri Chet Ram, jai Ram, Sohan Singh, Durga Singh, Mohan Singh, Rai Singh, Sita Ram and Swaran Singh were sent up for trial for the offence under Section 307 and 201,read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code. 7. A-l, A-2, abovenamed Sohan Singh, Jai Ram and Chet Ram were charged for the offence under Section 307 and 201 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code. A-l was also charged for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act for having been in possession of the sword without a licence. Other co-accused, namely, S/Shri Durga Singh, Rai Singh, Swaran Singh, Mohan Singh, and Sita Ram were charged for the offence under Section 201 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code. 8. The prosecution in support of its case in order to bring home the offence against all the accused examined as many as 17 witnesses. The case of the accused in their statements recorded under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure is that of denial simpliciter. 9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, upon consideration of the material placed before him, convicted and sentenced A-l only for the offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced A-2 for the offences under Section 323 and 341, Indian Penal Code. Both these accused were acquitted of the offence under Section 201 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code. A-l was acquitted of the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act and A-2 was acquitted of the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code. The remaining eight accused were acquitted of all the offences charged against them. 10. Be it stated that the acquittal of A-l of the offence under Section 201 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act; acquittal of A-2 of the offence under Section 307 and 201 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code and acquittal of remaining eight accused of the offences charged against them have not been assailed by the State by way of an appeal under Section 378, Code of Criminal Procedure and such acquittal has, therefore, become final. 11. Taking up the case of A-1 first. 11. Taking up the case of A-1 first. As stated above, though he was charged for the offence under Section 307 and 201 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code and under Section 25 of the Arms Act, he has been convicted and sentenced only for the offence under Section 307, Indian Penal Code. He has been acquitted of the offence under Section 201 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code as well as Section 25 of the Arms Act. It has been contended on behalf of A-l that as per the prosecution case, A-l is alleged to have attempted to commit the murder of PW-I Ram Lal by inflicting four blows with a sword which was in possession of A-l without a licence. The possession of the sword by A-l, therefore, a fact in issue was required to be proved and established by the prosecution. It was contended by the learned counsel that since the issue as to possession of the sword was in issue inasmuch as A-l was specifically charged for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act and of which offence he stands acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, such acquittal necessarily implies that A-l did not possess the sword. Such findings have become final and binding on the prosecution. Once A-l is held to be not in possession of the sword Ex.P-2, he cannot be held guilty for the offence under Section 307, Indian Penal Code for having attempted to commit the murder of PW-I Ram Lal by inflicting blows with the help of sword Ex. P-2. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the ratio laid down by this Court in Jai Ram alias Jaimal Singh vs. State of H.P. [Latest HLJ 2001 (HP) 335 ]. 12. In the case relied upon by the learned counsel, the accused therein was tried for the offence under Section 307, Indian Penal Code and under Section 25, Arms Act for having attempted to commit the murder of one Sanjeev Kumar by shooting at him with the gun. The learned Sessions Judge though acquitted the aqpused therein of the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act, convicted and sentenced him for the offence under Section 307, Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge though acquitted the aqpused therein of the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act, convicted and sentenced him for the offence under Section 307, Indian Penal Code. This Court came to the conclusion that since the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused was in possession of the gun at the relevant time or that he had used the same, he could not have been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 307, Indian Penal Code for having attempted to commit the murder of Sanjeev Kumar by shooting at him with the gun, the possession of which was not proved with the accused. It was further held that maintaining the conviction and sentence under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, would tantamount to self contradictory findings. 13. The ratio relied upon by the learned counsel for A-l fully applies to the facts of the present case. 14. A contention was raised by the learned Assistant Advocate General that no specific findings have been recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in respect of the offence under Section 25, Arms Act and, therefore, since the impugned judgment suffers from illegality, this Court after setting aside the conviction and sentence of A-l, order the re-trial of the case as contemplated under Section 386 (b) (i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 15. I am afraid this course cannot be adopted in the present case. In the present case, as many as ten persons were put to trial including A-l and A-2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted eight persons of the offences charged against them. A-l has also been acquitted of two offences, namely; the offence under Section 201, Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act. Similarly, A-2 has been acquitted of the offence under Section 307 and 201, read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code. The acquittal as recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not been assailed by the State by way of an appeal. In the present appeals, which have been preferred by A-l and A-2 under Section 374 (2), Code of Criminal Procedure, the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge against the eight other co-accused as well as A-l and A-2 in respect of certain offences cannot be interfered with. In the present appeals, which have been preferred by A-l and A-2 under Section 374 (2), Code of Criminal Procedure, the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge against the eight other co-accused as well as A-l and A-2 in respect of certain offences cannot be interfered with. Besides, remanding the case for re-trial as against A-l and A-2 would tantamount to piece-meal trial. Such piece-meal trial cannot be resorted to. f See: State of West Bengal vs. Laisal Haque and another etc. (AIR 1989 SC 129)]. 16. For the fore-going reasons, re-trial cannot be resorted to and A-1 will have to be acquitted of the offence under Section 307, Indian Penal Code once he has been acquitted of the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act on the failure of the prosecution to prove that at the relevant time he was possessed with the sword. 17. Insofar as A-2 is concerned, as stated above, though he was acquitted of the offences under Sections 307 and 201 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, he has been convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 323 and 341, Indian Penal Code. Be it stated that there was no specific charged for these offences against A-2. The learned Assistant Advocate General during the course of hearing has readily conceded that A-2 could not have been convicted for the offence under Section 341, Indian Penal Code in the absence of specific charge since the offence under Section 341, Indian Penal code is not a lesser offence falling under the offence under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, this is an independent offence and before recording conviction A-2 ought to have been specifically charged therefor. 18. Coming to the offence under Section 323, Indian Penal Code, it is significant to note that as per the medico-legal certificate Ex. PW 10/A issued by PW 10 Dr. Vijay Thakur on examination of PW I Ram Lal only four clean cut injuries having been caused with sharp edged weapon were found on his person. It is the prosecution own case that all such injuries were caused on the person of PW 1 Ram Lal by A-l and not by A-2. No simple injury having been caused with a blunt weapon was found on the person of PW i Ram Lal. It is the prosecution own case that all such injuries were caused on the person of PW 1 Ram Lal by A-l and not by A-2. No simple injury having been caused with a blunt weapon was found on the person of PW i Ram Lal. Besides, a reading of statement of PWI Ram Lal also shows that no beating is attributed to A-2. According to PW I Ram Lal, A-2 had caught hold of him by his arm from behind in order to facilitate the attack by A-1. Even if the statement of PW I Ram Lal is accepted on its face value, the same would not make him liable for the offence under Section 323, Indian Penal Code. He could have been held responsible for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code had such an offence been made out against A-1. 19. For the fore-going, the conviction and sentence imposed upon A-2 for the offence under Sections 323 and 341, Indian Penal Code, cannot be sustained. 20. Resultantly, both the appeals are allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed upon A-l and A-2 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide the impugned judgment dated 5.2.2001 are set aside and they are acquitted of the offences for which they have been convicted. A-l is in jail undergoing sentence imposed upon him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. He shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. The amount of fine if already paid shall be refunded to him forthwith. A-2 is on bail pursuant to the orders dated 8.3.2001 of this Court. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled and discharged. The amount of fine, if already paid, shall also be refunded to him forthwith. The case property shall be dealt with in accordance with the directions of the learned trial court.