A very unfortunate and serious mistake has been committed in the decision of this case. In this case the appellant Ali Haider Khan of village Narakot, Poonch, has been convicted under section 307 Ranbir Penal Code and sentenced to four years regorous imprisonment and Rs. 10 fine for attempting to cause the death of one Mohd. Khaqan of the same village. Ali Haider Khan is Mohd. Khaqans brothers brother-in-law and there is other relationship also between the parties. It is alleged that on 2Ist Sawan 2001 in the afternoon the cattle of Mohd. Khaqan trespassed into the field of Mst. Nashata Begum and there was some exchange of abuse between these two. Mst. Nashata Begum is Ali Haider Khans sister and he upbraided her for quarrelling with Mohd. Khaqan. Mohd. Khaqan retired into the house of his brother Ali Akbar which happened to be opposite to that of the accused Ali Haider Khan and from there also, it appears the exchange of abuse continued. The prosecution story then is that in the course of this alternation Ali Haider Khan took out his gun and fired at Mohd. Khaqan. The distance from which this gun was fired is alleged by the prosecution to be about 60 yards. Mohd. Khaqan was hit in the left foot near the dorsal aspect. The first information report of this occurrence was made in the Police Station Dhirkote at 9pm on the same day. The police station is at the distance of 8 miles from the village Narakote. On the 23rd of Sawan Mohd. Khaqan was medically examined and was found to have injuries on his left foot which were described by the medical Officer Dhirkote as follows: There are two lacerated contused wounds, one the dorsum of his left foot and one on the same foot below the lateral melolus. The edges are turned inwards. There is inflamation of the whole foot. There is scorching and blackening of the skin round these wounds. On examination I found that the tendons of the following muscles are torn- (a) Ext. Long. Digitorium. (b) Peronius Tertius. (c) Peronius Brevius. (d) Peronius Bongus. and Annular Ligament is torn. The neck and the head of the Astragalus is broken and there is perforation of the cuboid and Navicular bone. On examination I found that the tendons of the following muscles are torn- (a) Ext. Long. Digitorium. (b) Peronius Tertius. (c) Peronius Brevius. (d) Peronius Bongus. and Annular Ligament is torn. The neck and the head of the Astragalus is broken and there is perforation of the cuboid and Navicular bone. The orifice of entry is smaller in circumference and the orifice of exit is wider apart than the orifice of entry." The prosecution has produced Ali Akbar brother of Mohd. Khaqan, Mst. Roshan Jan, wife of the accused and sister of the complainants, Mst. Nashata Begum, Wali Mohd.. Mohd. Feroze, Abdul Rehman and Amir Haider. The relationship of Ali Akbar, Mst. Roshan Jan and Mst. Nashata Begum has been mentioned above. Wali Mohd. and Mohd. Feroze are also collaterals of the parties. Abdul Rehman and Amir Haider are neighbours and do not appear to be related either to the one or the other party. The Courts below have not relied upon the evidence of Wali Mohd. and Mohd. Feroze who said in the first instance that they came on the scene after the gun was fired and improved upon their statements in the course of the trial to the extent that it was fired in their presence. Nashata Begums evidence is also not helpful to the prosecution case as she said she had gone away before the incident of the gun firing, Reliance, in the main, has been placed upon the evidence of Abdul Rehman and Amir Haider who appear in this case to be unconnected and independent. The prosecution evidence may be said to be to the effect that the accused Ali Haider Khan fired the gun from in front of his room at Mohd. Khaqan who was at a distance of approximately 60 yards from him. This is the story of the witnesses who claim to have seen the occurrence from the very beginning and this is the inference from the evidence of such of those, who said that they arrived on the scene after the gun was fired, In defence the appellant admitted the genesis of the occurrence as being the same as alleged by the prosecution. With regard to the firing of the gun, however, the appellant says that it was Ali Akbar the brother of Mohd. With regard to the firing of the gun, however, the appellant says that it was Ali Akbar the brother of Mohd. Khaqan, who took out the gun from his room in the course of the quarrel that was going on and that he wanted to fire at him but Mohd. Khaqan tried to dissuade him and snatch away the g n from him and in the struggle the gun that was printed below went off and struck Mohd. Khaqans left foot. There is evidence in support of this version but it has not been believed. In a matter like this the attention of the courts below should have directed itself pointedly to the description of the wound given in the Medical Officers report and the distance from which the gun was alleged to have been fired From the injury report cited above it will be noticed that there were marks of scorching and blackening of the skin round the wounds. A very cursory familiarity with fire arms and the nature of the wounds they cause should have led to the inference that such wounds could not have been caused from anything like the distance alleged by the prosecution. The significance of this circumstance occurred itself to the Police who made an enquiry from the Medical Officer about his opinion on the point of distance from which the gun, in these circumstances, was expected to be fired and strangely enough the Medical Officer said that such wounds could be caused from a distance of about 60 yards. This can be characterised as nothing but arrant nonsense and coming from a Medical Officer it is nothing but reprehensible. Either the Medical Officer had not the slightest notion of what he was about or he is appallingly ignorant of even the elementary knowledge requisite for the efficient discharge of his responsible duties. It is a matter of great regret that the attention of the courts below was not directed to this very important aspect of the case. This glaring incongruity would give rise to a doubt which would throw its shadow upon the shoal aspect of the prosecution case and it was, therefore considered necessary to invite the opinion of the Director of Medical Services, Jammu and Kashmir State, on this point. This glaring incongruity would give rise to a doubt which would throw its shadow upon the shoal aspect of the prosecution case and it was, therefore considered necessary to invite the opinion of the Director of Medical Services, Jammu and Kashmir State, on this point. His report has been obtained and he was called as a witness by this Court to verify it As was only to be executed he said " keeping in view the injuries mentioned in this report I am of opinion that these could not probably have been caused by the Topidar Gun in question in it was fired from a distance of 60 yards as stated by the said Medical Officer. While on the contrary I am inclined to think that such extensive injuries might have resulted from the gun having been fired from a very close range say within a few inches or so of the body." This makes sense and is vastly in contradiction with the opinion given by the Medical Officer of Dhirkote on a subsequent requisition by the Police. It may be impressed at this stage that whatever the measure of co-operation required between the various services in the State it is no part of the duty of experts to seek to conform their opinion to the results of the investigation of the Police. It will be difficult to treat with respect or place reliance on the opinion of Medical Officers in criminal cases if it is tainted with this tendency. After the opinion of the Director of Medical Services the learned Crown Counsel has stated frankly that in these circumstances the case for the prosecution cannot be supported. Nor can any other view be taken and I would like this judgment to be brought particularly to the notice of the courts below who have decided this case to note the enormity of their omission. This judgment will also be brought to the notice of his Lordship the Chief Justice for initiating such disciplinary action as he may deem fit against the Medical Officer concerned. In these circumstances it is not possible to believe the prosecution story. This appeal is allowed. This conviction is set aside and the appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith unless wanted in connection with some other case.