ONKARESHWAR BHATT, J. State of U. P. has filed this appeal against judgment and order dated 27-8-1980 passed in Sessions Trial No. 295 of 1979 by the then 1st. Addl. Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad whereby the accused respondents, Raghubir alias Munnu, Janardan, Siya Ram and Ram Singh have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 148, 307 and 307/149 I. P. C. 2. Learned A. G. A. appearing for the State and Sri V. C. Katiyar, learned counsel appearing for the accused respondents have been heard. 3. According to the prosecution case on 18-1-1979 at about 8. 15 p. m. informant Suresh Chandra, P. W. 1, was sitting in his Kotha on a cot alongwith Bhikham, P. W. 5, and Arjun and a lantern was glowing at the door. At that time all the four accused respondents armed with country made pistols came to the door of Kotha. Ram Singh exhorted while Raghubir alias Munnu exclaimed that informant should be fired at. All the four accused respondents fired from their country made pistols and informant, Suresh Chandra, Bhikham and Arjun sustained fire arm injuries. On alarm raised by the injured Hari Ram, P. W. 2 Ram Kishan, P. W. 3, Bahadur, Tulsi Ram and others came flashing their torches and saw the accused running away. Suresh Chand prepared a written report of the occurrence. The report was given at the police station Kotwali Fatehgarh on 18-1-1979 at 9. 10 p. m. and the case was registered. Investigation of the case was carried by Himmat Singh, P. W. 6, and charge-sheet was submitted against the accused respondents. 4. The accused respondents have denied the prosecution story. Raghubir has stated that informant used to commit theft and injuries were sustained by him and his association while he was committing theft. Accused, Siya Ram, has stated that informant wanted to have land of his choice while he was Pradhan of Gram Sabha and was pressurizing him. Accused Ram Singh has stated that he was a member of Gram Sabha and the informant got annoyed with him in connection with allotment of land. 5. Informant, Suresh Chand, PW 1 has admitted that prior to his proceeding to police station for lodging the report he had a talk with his colleagues regarding the incident. This shows that version given in the written report was not spontaneous and if was an outcome of deliberation and consultation. 5. Informant, Suresh Chand, PW 1 has admitted that prior to his proceeding to police station for lodging the report he had a talk with his colleagues regarding the incident. This shows that version given in the written report was not spontaneous and if was an outcome of deliberation and consultation. This feature detracts the value of the F. I. R. 6. In the F. I. R. existence of old enmity has been stated by the informant with Raghubir alias Munnu, Jawahar and others. In his deposition informant, Suresh Chand, P. W. 1, has stated that enmity existed since 1974 regarding allotment of some land. However, no immediate cause has been assigned by the informant which could impel the accused persons to commit the crime in question. 7. In the F. I. R. role of firing has been assigned to accused Janardan, Siya Ram and Raghubir alias Munnu only. However, in the statement informant Suresh Chandra has stated that apart from the above three accused Ram Singh also fired. According to the prosecution case all the four accused reached the door of informant and all the four fired at him, which injured him, Bhikham and Arjun. The injuries of all the three injured were examined by Dr. H. P. Srivastav, P. W. 4, on 18-1-1979 in between 9. 5 p. m. to 10 p. m. P. W. 2, Hari Ram is alleged to have seen the occurrence. He has stated that he was returning from his field and was proceeding towards his house. Near the house of Suresh Chand at a distance of 20 paces he heard alarm and sound of fire. In the light of torch he saw only Raghubir alias Munnu running away. He does not name other three accused-respondents. This witness was cross-examined by the prosecution. The testimony of this witness does not show that Raghubir alias Munnu also fired at the informant. What he says is that Raghubir alias Munnu was seen by him while he was running away. Therefore, Hari Ram, P. W. 2 does not support the prosecution case. P. W. 3, Ram Kishan, who has also said to have seen the occurrence does not say that Arjun and Bhikham were also fired at by the accused persons. He stated that all the four respondents were firing on Suresh. The statement of this witness was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 2-8-1980. P. W. 3, Ram Kishan, who has also said to have seen the occurrence does not say that Arjun and Bhikham were also fired at by the accused persons. He stated that all the four respondents were firing on Suresh. The statement of this witness was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 2-8-1980. The Investigating Officer has stated that Ram Kishan was not available for interrogation. This fact is falsified by the statement of Bhikham, PW 5, who has stated that Ram Kishan came when the police reached the place of occurrence. 8. According to the prosecution case all the four accused respondents opened fire simultaneously when the informant, Bhikham and Arjun were sitting facing the door on a cot. The doctor has found that Suresh Chand has sustained fire arm injuries on left forearm, left elbow and right thigh. Bhikham sustained injuries in the right elbow. Arjun sustained two injuries on his left palm. No blood was found either on the cot or on the floor. The manner of firing as stated by the prosecution is suggestive that the injuries should have been caused on the front side. Dr. H. P. Srivastava has stated that two injuries of Suresh have been caused due to firing from the back side. Moreover, no bullet has been recovered either from the wall of Kotha or from the floor of Kotha. According to the prosecution case four shots have been fired while there are six injuries on the person of three injured. During investigation two bullets were found in Kotha in the cot. If firing was by bullet then six injuries could not have been caused. No pellet was recovered either from the place of occurrence or from any of the injuries of three injured persons. In the above facts and circumstances, the testimony of Suresh Chand and Bhikham two injured examined in the case, is not reliable. 9. On appraisal of the evidence adduced in the case, the trial Court has rightly concluded that the occurrence has taken place in some other manner and the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused-respondents beyond all shadow of doubt. The judgment of acquittal calls for no interference. The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed .