Judgment S.N.Pathak, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 9th August 1991, passed by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram, in ST. No. 251 of 1986, whereby appellant Inderdeo Singh was convicted u/s 307 I.RC. as also u/s 27 of the Arms Act and he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years and one year respectively, both sentences running concurrently. Appellant Ram Kawal Singh was convicted u/s 307/34 I.RC. and he was sentenced to undergo R.t. for seven years. He was further convicted u/s 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year (sentences running concurrently). Appellant Satyendra Kumar Singh was also convicted u/s 307/34 I.RC. and Section 27 of the Arms Act and he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years and one year respectively, sentences running concurrently. 2. The prosecution case originated on the F.I.R. of Siyaram Singh (Ext-1), wherein it was alleged that on 19th May 1985, at about 3.00 P.M., he; his father Hari Narayan Singh, proceeded towards their Mill. When they reached near their Mill, suddenly the appellants confronted the informant and his other relations. The assailants were armed with firearms, such as, rifle and guns. Ram Kawal Singh ordered Inderdeo Singh for murderous assault upon the informants family members. Then Indradeo Singh fired from his rifle which hit Hari Narayan Singh on his left thigh. The informant himself was chased by Ram Kawal and Satyendra Kumar for assault, but he managed to escape. When the villagers, such as, Prem Chandra Singh, Govind Singh, Darp Narayan Singh were attracted to the scene of occurrence, the assailants took to their heels. The aforesaid occurrence was sequel to the land dispute between the parties. 3. Accused appellants had taken the defence of false implication on account of counter or counter blast case filed by one Jang Bahadur Ram against the informant and his father etc. in which Inderdeo Singh was a witness. 4. The prosecution examined, in all, eight witnesses and it had brought on the record the formal F.I.R. (Ext-1), over which was recorded the fardbeyan of the informant Siya Ram Singh, Ext.-2 which was signature of Hari Narayan Singh on the statement of the informant (Ext-1), Injury report (Ext-4), requisition sent to the Malkhana In-charge to prove its case. P.W. 1 was Prem Chand Singh, a witness named in the F.I.R. itself. RW. P.W. 1 was Prem Chand Singh, a witness named in the F.I.R. itself. RW. 2 was Govind Singh, also named in the F.I.R. RW. 3 was Darp Narayan Singh who was tendered by the prosecution. RW. 4 was Hari Narayan Singh, the injured, and RW. 5 was Siya Ram Singhthe informant. RW. 6 was Dr. D.P. Singh. RW. 7 was the I.O., Antu Ram P.W. 8 was a formal witness who brought on the record, Ext. 4. The evidence of P.Ws. 1, 4 & 5, all was, in substance, identical and it was in full support of the alleged story of assault upon Hari Narayan Singh at the alleged place, as stated in the fardbeyan of the informant (P.W. 5). So far the assault, in particular, upon Hari Narayan Singh is concerned, the evidence of these witnesses is consistent and there is no discrepancy in the evidence of these witnesses inter-se. So I shall refer to the criticism of the evidence advanced by the appellants lawyer and it shall be seen whether the points of criticism raised by the appellants lawyer would amount to discrediting and dismantling the prosecution case. In this connection, the evidence of RW. 2, Govind Singh, firstly attracts notice. This witness in his chief has fully supported and corroborated the testimony of other witnesses to whom I have referred to above. But in cross-examination, he has made significant departure from his examination in chief and he stated that the house of one Jang Bahadur is on the south-western flank of the village. The house of Inderdeo is also situated there. There was arson to the Paunta (perhaps, the stack of husk). Inderdeo was standing at the door at the time of arson. Subsequently, there was an exchange of firing between the Harijans on the one hand and the men of Hari Narayan on the other. In this occurrence of cross-firing, Hari Narayan and some Harijans received injuries. Inderdeo received no injury. Ram Kawal and Satyendra (the appellants) had already fled from that place and Hari Narayan had already received injuries before these persons fled from the scene of occurrence. Hari Narayan was lying injured there on account of the injuries sustained by shots fired from firearms. This place, where Hari Narayan was lying, is near the house of Jang Bahadur and the Mill of Har Narayan is at a distance of 100 yards frorr this place. Hari Narayan was lying injured there on account of the injuries sustained by shots fired from firearms. This place, where Hari Narayan was lying, is near the house of Jang Bahadur and the Mill of Har Narayan is at a distance of 100 yards frorr this place. The aforesaid evidence of this witness in cross-examination would be considered later in order to find out whether this witness was giving a correct version of the alleged occurrence which was in contradistinction to his statement in chief. P.W. 3 was tendered and in cross-examination by the accused, he simply said that the sister of RW. 1, Prem Chand, who was nephew of Hari Narayan was a teacher in the school, where Ram Kawal was a teacher. Sister of Prem Chand was dismissed from her services in the school. It was suggested to RW. 1 that Ram Kawal was instrumental in dismissal of his sister and, therefore, he had deposed falsely against the accused-appellants. P.W. 1 had denied this suggestion, but he had admitted that he was an accused in the counter case filed by Jang Bahadur Prasad. 5. Before I advert to consideration of Medical evidence and the I.O.s evidence, I would like to consider the evidence of the accused-appellants introduced through some D.Ws. and certain papers exhibited on their behalf, it would be considered whether this defence taken by the accused-appellants was sufficient to demolish the prosecution case and to substantiate their own version of a particular occurrence, which may refer to the prosecution case or the case of the appellants themselves in which some Harijans including the appellant Inderdeo had received injuries. D.W. 1 was an S.l. in the C.I.D., Department, Patna. This Defence witness was examined to say that he had supervised the cases lodged by the prosecution and the same lodged by Jang Bahadur Singh (41/85 & 42/85) respectively. He said that the P.O. was not near the house of Ganga Bishun, rather it was the field of Jang Bahadur, where there was an exchange of firing by the prosecution party and the Harijan party. He said further that Hari Narayan (P.W. 4) had received injuries at this very place. But it appears that this witness was examined just to support the case of the appellants and he did not speak the truth. This is apparent from his statement in the cross-examination. He said further that Hari Narayan (P.W. 4) had received injuries at this very place. But it appears that this witness was examined just to support the case of the appellants and he did not speak the truth. This is apparent from his statement in the cross-examination. He admitted at Paragraph 4 of his cross-examination that he went to Narayana village (the P.O. village) on 24th May 19B5. He did not also visit the house of any body. He visited the P.O., as pointed out by the Mudai. He found nothing at the place of occurrence. He was admittedly, supervising authority and he inspected the P.O. as led by the Mudai. By the word-Mudaihe meant the informant of Chenari P. S. Case No. 42 of 1985. The written report of Jang Bahadur (Ext-B) which gave rise to Chenari P.S. Case No. 42 of 1985 referred to an occurrence of arson to the cattle-shed of this informant Jang Bahadur by Hari Narayan Singh and others. Subsequently, Jang Bahadur and others (almost 17 in number) indulged in firing which caused injuries upon several Harijans. So there was a reference to an arson. So when D.W. 1 says that there was exchange of firing between the Harijan party and the party led by Hari Narayan Singh, he meant to suggest that he had visited only that place which was shown to him as the P.O., and certainly not the place, which was alleged to be the P.O., as alleged by the informant of Chenari P.S. Case No. 41 of 1985, which was near the Mill of the informant. So it is apparent that D.W. 1 was in collusion with the accused-appellants and he was produced just for supporting the version of the accused-appellants and to suppress the alleged P.O., where Hari Narayan Singh received injuries. D.W. 2 was the Doctor who referred to the injuries of several persons who had received injuries caused either by hard blunt substance or by firearms. All the injuries which were received by the so-called injured persons, were simple including those which were caused by firearms, because no Xray plate nor any Xray report was produced by the injured person, some injuries on whom were to be ascertained to be grievous. The concerned injury reports were exhibited (Ext-C series). Ext-A was a formal F.I.R. of the case of the accused-appellants lodged by Jang Bahadur. The concerned injury reports were exhibited (Ext-C series). Ext-A was a formal F.I.R. of the case of the accused-appellants lodged by Jang Bahadur. It was alleged by Jang Bahadur that he had planted bamboo clumps over khata No. 208, plot no. 659. One Jimmedar Singh had gone to cut bamboo from this bamboo clumps. When Jang Bahadur protested, he was chased, abused on the point of fire-arm. Subsequently, there was an arson in his cattle shed and firing at the hands of Hari Narayan and others. But none of the D.Ws. examined, said that there was any arson or any sign of arson at the place where D.W. 1 was led by the accused party. Moreover, when Jang Bahadur was chased and he had retreated after protest over cutting of bamboos by Jimmedar, there was no question of Jimmedar and others, including Hari Narayan, indulging in any firing upon Jang Bahadur and upon others Harijans, who might have organised themselves to the aid of Jang Bahadur. The so called counter-case rather a counter-blast case was lodged by Jang Bahadur on 19th May 1985 at 5.30 P.M.; whereas the prosecution case was lodged at 4.30 P.M. on 19th May 1985, at the same police station. All the injuries sustained by the members of Harijan Party, including Inderdeo by firearms were pea-size injuries and the injuries suffered by other persons on the Harijan side, were lacerated injuriesall simple. So it appears that the men on the Harijans side had perhaps, manufactured and concocted a case as counter blast to the prosecution case; otherwise there is no explanation for any evidence regarding the alleged arson, which has been taken as a defence by the accused-appellants through suggestion to the P.Ws. It was submitted by the appellants Lawyer that there was an occurrence of arson to the cattle-shed or the stack of husk raised by Jang Bahadur which culminated in the exchange of firing between the Harijan party and the informant party in which Hari Narayan might have received gun shot injuries. But the moot point is as to why Harijans would be spared by the informant, Siyaram Singh, and only tnderdeo Singh, Ram Kawal Singh and his son Satyendra Kumar Singh would be implicated in the instant case. But the moot point is as to why Harijans would be spared by the informant, Siyaram Singh, and only tnderdeo Singh, Ram Kawal Singh and his son Satyendra Kumar Singh would be implicated in the instant case. If at all Hari Narayan Singh received injuries from the firing by the men of the Harijan Party also, it is also not understandable why the appellants would align themselves with the Harijans to indulge in assualt on the informants father. Moreover, a suggestion was given to RW. 5, at Paragraph 5, that there was an occurrence of arson to the house of Jang Bahadur at the instance of Hari Narayan Singh and when there was exchange of firing between Harijans and the informants party, the informant filed a false case, in order to escape from the rigors of the counter case. This suggestion will clearly refer to an occurrence of firing. The accused-appellants are suppressing the injuries sustained by Hari Narayan Singh and they are alleging that several men of the Harijan Party had received injuries. But when there was a suggestion to the informant (RW. 5) that there was exchange of firing, to advance the plea that none of the members of the prosecution party shall receive any injury, is a preposterous plea. So it is apparent that the accused-appellants did not come to the court with a genuine story of an occurrence of firing in which Inderdeo Singh also received injuries. I have already stated above that there was no explanation why Inderdeo Singh would align himself with the Harijans and shall join their party just to receive injury from the firing resorted to by the prosecution party. In all circumstances, therefore, the story of an occurrence given by the accused-appellants, did not inspire confidence. 6. As far as the prosecution version is concerned, the injury upon Hari Narayan Singh was supported by the evidence of P.W. 6, who found one lacerated wound which was a wound of entry 1" x 1/2" x 7" in the inner side of left thigh. The wound was profusely bleeding due to injury to the femoral artery. A bullet was lodged in the outer side of left thigh underneath the skin. This bullet was removed by operation. The I.O. (RW. 7) described the P.O. of the occurrence as a lane at a distance of 25 yards south of the house of the informants house. The wound was profusely bleeding due to injury to the femoral artery. A bullet was lodged in the outer side of left thigh underneath the skin. This bullet was removed by operation. The I.O. (RW. 7) described the P.O. of the occurrence as a lane at a distance of 25 yards south of the house of the informants house. There was a Mill of the informant at 25 yards south of the P.O. There were stains of blood at the P.O. which could not be picked up, because blood was soiled with dust on account of trampling by passers-by. So the physical observation of the P.O. by the i.O. would suggest that, of course, there was an occurrence at the place, as alleged by the prosecution. 7. The appellants lawyer submitted that in view of the evidence of the Doctor, there does not appear to be any case u/s 307 l.P.C, because the injuries sustained by the victim was neither on any vital part of his body nor it was such as would have resulted in his death in the normal course of nature nor it was grievous injury, as described by the Doctor. But to constitute an offence u/s 307 l.P.C, it is not necessary that the injured must receive an injury on his vital part in the firing resorted to by the assailants. When there was an act of firing from the rifle and there was no allegation that it was specifically aimed at the leg of the victim, there were very many chances that the shot might have hit the victim on the vital part. The very fact of firing indicates the murderous intention of the assailants, but simply because it failed to hit the victim on vital part, it would not indicate that the assailants had no murderus intention. Moreover, when the bullet was embedded in the muscles of the thigh of the injured, I do not think it can be said tnat the injuries received by the victim could not be grievous. On the thigh, there is more of muscle and the bone is situated deep under the thigh portion of human being.The statement of the Doctor that the bullet was underneath the skin cannot be taken seriously, because bullet cannot be conontained by skin, although the muscle can arrest the onward journey of bullet so hat it may be embedded therein. On the thigh, there is more of muscle and the bone is situated deep under the thigh portion of human being.The statement of the Doctor that the bullet was underneath the skin cannot be taken seriously, because bullet cannot be conontained by skin, although the muscle can arrest the onward journey of bullet so hat it may be embedded therein. Moreover, when the bullet is extracted by operaion, that certainly may cause bodily pain to the injured almost for 20-21 days which will bring the nature of injury under the iescnption given in section 302 i.P.C. So the injury described by the Doctor to be grievous cannot be dismissed as a wrong statement. Moreover, as the defence of the appellants is, there was an exchange of firing between the Harijan party and the prosecution party. So there were probabilities of the informants father receiving more injuries, and some other persons, who were ranged on their side, as the fard-beyan of Jang Bahadur shows, would have also received injuries. That means, the prosecution version brought by the informant was more reliable than the defence version of the occurrence brought on the record by the accused-appellants. From this, it would follow that the informant had given a genuine version to the Police regarding the alleged occurrence in which his father received bullet injury. The cause of occurrence given by the informant was raw over cutting of a Sesam tree by the accused-appellants. It was submitted by the appellants lawyer that the I.O. was not led to the Sesam tree in order to see whether there was any occurrence near the alleged Sesam tree. In this connection, I am of the opinion that since the P.O. is a lane, near the Mill of the informant, there was no question of the informant leading the I.O. to the Sesam tree. So if at all the I.O. failed to investigate the case in order to find out the genuineness of genesis of the case, it was his laches and not the laches on the part of the informant. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion of the evidence and the circumstances on the record, i am of the opinion that the trial court which recorded the finding of guilt against the accused-appellants, did not commit any legal or factual error. 9. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion of the evidence and the circumstances on the record, i am of the opinion that the trial court which recorded the finding of guilt against the accused-appellants, did not commit any legal or factual error. 9. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. The appellants shall surrender in the tower court to suffer the sentence awarded.