JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been preferred by the accused- appellant against the judgment and order dated 30.11.1987 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar in Sessions Case No. 35/85 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused-appellant for offence u/s. 307 IPC and sentenced him to 7years R.I. and a fine of 500/- and in default to further undergo 6 months' R.I. and by the same judgment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted another accused-Banwari for offence u/s. 307 IPC. 2. This appeal arises in the following circumstances : On 8.9.1984, PW-4 Haru Ram lodged an oral report (Ex.P/4) with the Police Station Raisinghnagar alleging inter alia that his grand-father Thana Ram got 2 squares of Nanak Ram (accused-appellant) and others in outlet of 5 LPM. When this land was transferred in the name of complainant party, the members of the accused party started bearing enmity with the complainant party. It was further stated that on the day of incident i.e. 8.9.1984 at about 5.00 p.m. PW-4 Haru Ram and PW-5 Shyama Ram were standing on the bank of cattle pond and at that time accused-appellant-Nanak Ram and other accused-Banwari, Jagjeet, Jeet Singh, Maheshi, Dayala and Gurcharan Singh came there from towards the house of accused-appellant-Nanak Ram and exhorted that they would be killed and at that time, accused-appellant-Nanak Ram was having 12 bore gun. It was also stated in the report (Ex.P/4) that Nanak Ram gave the gun to another accused-Banwari and asked him to fire with the gun and thereafter the accused-Banwari made fire with the said gun which hit Bakhta Ram (PW-3) on the left hand and some pallets also hit him on the chest. 3. The report (Ex.P/4) was reduced into writing by PW-7 Jai Singh in the shape of FIR (Ex.P/4) and investigation was started. 4. During the course of investigation, PW-3 Bakhta Ram was got medically examined by PW-9 Dr. R.L. Goyal and his injury report is Ex.P/16 which shows that he received three gun shot injuries and the X-ray report of PW-3 Bakhta Ram is Ex.P/12 which shows that all the three injuries received by PW-3 Bakhta Ram were grievous. 5. After investigation, the police filed challan against the accused-appellant and other accused-Banwari and Maheshi alias Ramesh for offence u/ss. 307 & 307/34 IPC. 6. Through order dated 22.1.1986, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges for offence u/ss. 5. After investigation, the police filed challan against the accused-appellant and other accused-Banwari and Maheshi alias Ramesh for offence u/ss. 307 & 307/34 IPC. 6. Through order dated 22.1.1986, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges for offence u/ss. 307/34 IPC and Secs. 27 & 30 of the Arms Act against accused-appellant-Nanak Ram and for offence u/s. 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act against accused-Banwari. By the same order dated 22.1.1986, the learned Additional Sessions Judge discharged another accused-Ramesh alias Maheshi for offence u/s. 307/34 IPC. 7. During trial, 9 witnesses had been produced by the prosecution and thereafter statements of accused persons u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded and no witness was examined in defence. 8. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his judgment and order dated 30.11.1987 convicted and sentenced the accused- appellant as stated above. 9. Aggrieved from the said judgment, this appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant. 10. In this appeal, following submissions have been made on behalf of the accused-appellant : i. That in the FIR (Ex.P/4) which was lodged by PW-4 Haru Ram and even in the statements of the injured PW-3 Bakhta Ram and other witnesses, there is categoric case of the prosecution that fire by 12 bore gun was made by accused-Banwari and not by Nanak Ram (accused-appellant) and when accused-Banwari was acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the accused- Nanak Ram should also be acquitted and therefore, the findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge against accused-appellant-Nanak Ram are erroneous one. ii. That since injuries of Ramesh alias Maheshi member of accused party have not been explained, therefore, from this point of view also, the case of prosecution has become doubtful. 11. On the contrary, the learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant and submitted that the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge are based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not call for interference. 12. I have heard both the parties. 13. So far as injuries of Bakhta Ram (PW-3) is concerned, his injury report is Ex.P/16 and the same has been proved by PW-9 Dr. R.L. Goyal. Injury report (Ex.P/16) of Bakhta Ram (PW-3) shows that he received 3 gun shot injuries. 12. I have heard both the parties. 13. So far as injuries of Bakhta Ram (PW-3) is concerned, his injury report is Ex.P/16 and the same has been proved by PW-9 Dr. R.L. Goyal. Injury report (Ex.P/16) of Bakhta Ram (PW-3) shows that he received 3 gun shot injuries. X-ray report of Bakhta Ram (PW-3) is Ex.P/12 which was proved by PW-8 Dr. K.N. Markande which shows that there was fracture of mandible. 14. There is also no dispute on the point that from the same incident, a cross case was also registered at the same Police Station Raisinghnagar and the FIR of the cross case is Ex.D/2 which was lodged by accused-appellant-Nanak Ram. Ex.D/5 is the challan which was filed on the report of accused-appellant- Nanak Ram against PW-3 Bakhta Ram, PW-4 Haru Ram, PW-5 Shyama Ram and Ors. for offence u/s. 307 IPC. 15. Injury report of Ramesh alias Maheshi is Ex.D/6-A which shows that he received as many as 16 injuries on his person, out of which injury No. 1 was caused by sharp edged weapon and injury No. 12 was found to be grievous one. The X-ray report of Ramesh alias Maheshi is Ex.D/7-A which shows that there was fracture of mandible. 16. There is also no dispute on the point that Ramesh Alias Maheshi received these injuries in the same incident. 17. The question which arises for consideration in the facts and circumstances of the present case is whether the findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar are liable to be confirmed one or not. 18. In the present case in the report (Ex.P/4) which was lodged by PW-4 Haru Ram, there is clear mention of the fact that the accused-appellant-Nanak Ram asked another accused-Banwari to fire and thereafter Banwari fired which hit PW-3 Bakhta Ram. 19. PW-3 Bakhta am who is injured is the star witness in this case and he has clearly stated in his statement that he received gun shot injuries at the hands of accused-Banwari. Similar is the statement of PW-4 Haru Ram who lodged the report Ex.P/1. 20. Thus, from the prosecution evidence, it is clear that gun shots were fired by accused-Banwari and not by Nanak Ram (accused-appellant) as a result of which PW-3 Bakhta Ram received gun shot injuries. 21. Similar is the statement of PW-4 Haru Ram who lodged the report Ex.P/1. 20. Thus, from the prosecution evidence, it is clear that gun shots were fired by accused-Banwari and not by Nanak Ram (accused-appellant) as a result of which PW-3 Bakhta Ram received gun shot injuries. 21. From the prosecution evidence, it is also clear that they have not explained the injuries of Ramesh alias Maheshi though he also received the injuries in the same incident and his injuries cannot be presumed to be of trivial nature because he received as many as 16 injuries including grievous injury and one injury by sharp-edged weapon. 22. There is clear evidence of the prosecution that gun shots were fired by accused-Banwari, who has been acquitted by the learned trial Judge and when accused-Banwari has been acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the accused-appellant-Nanak Ram cannot be convicted for offence u/s. 307 IPC especially when the main accused who fired the gun has been acquitted. Therefore, the findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge are contrary to evidence of the prosecution and are palpably wrong and the accused-appellant is entitled to acquittal. 23. That apart, since in the present case injuries on the person of accused- Ramesh alias Maheshi, have not been explained by the prosecution witnesses and therefore, the prosecution has suppressed genesis and origin of the occurrence and has not presented true version and not only this, since witnesses of the prosecution have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused-Ramesh alias Maheshi therefore, they are lying on the most material point and further more since accused-Ramesh @ Maheshi received as many as 16 injuries on his person, out of which injury No. 1 was caused by sharp-edged weapon and injury No. 12 was found to be grievous injury therefore his injuries cannot be treated to be of trivial nature, but are grievous one and were received by him at the time of same occurrence and, therefore, in my opinion non-explanation of injuries to the accused-Ramesh alias Maheshi Ram is fatal to the prosecution and thus it makes the prosecution version of the occurrence doubtful and charges against the accused cannot be held to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 24. 24. For the reasons mentioned above, the findings of conviction for offence u/s. 307 IPC recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside and appellant is entitled to acquittal for offence u/s. 307 IPC and the present appeal is liable to be allowed.Accordingly, the present appeal filed by the accused-appellant-Nanak Ram is allowed and the judgment and order dated 30.11.1987 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar in Sessions Case No. 35/85 are set aside and the accused-appellant is acquitted of the charges for offence u/s. 307 IPC. (v) Since the accused-appellant-Nanak Ram, is on bail, he need not surrender and their bail bonds stand cancelled. Appeal allowed. *******