ASHOK KUMAR TIWARI, J. ( 1 ) APPELLANT herein stands convicted under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code vide judgment passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Neemuch district Mandsaur in Sessions Trial No. 253/92. ( 2 ) (A ). Prosecution's case, in brief, is that on 10-9-1992 at about 6. 30 p. m. in village bhavrasa when Laxman Singh (PW-7) was wrapping his Dhoti after attending the call of nature, appellant Ishwar Singh came there riding on a motorcycle along with two companions. He parked his motorcycle leaving its engine on and he took out a pistol and fired it on Laxman Singh (PW-7 ). Laxman singh (PW-7) received the bullet injury on right side of the abdomen. No sooner he was hit by the pistol shot, he ran away from there. Appellant and his both companions chased him and they caught hold of him near the farm of Kishan Singh. Laxman Singh (PW-7) raised a cry when appellant again tried to fire pistol shot to him, but pistol did not fire. Then the appellant took out a knife and he struck Laxman Singh (PW-7) with knife. Laxman Singh (PW-7) was hit on his head and right hand with knife due to blows he sustained injuries. 2 (b ). On hearing cries of Laxman Singh (PW-7), Devram, Ganeshram and Ishwar singh reached there, thereby appellant and his both companions fled away from there towards village Palsoda riding on the motorcycle. Thereafter Laxman Singh (PW-7) was taken to hospital where Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P/1) was made by him and a crime was registered at Police Station, Jiran District mandsaur. Injured Laxman Singh (PW-7) was examined by Dr. Suresh Chandra Vyas (PW-3) and Dr. D. K. Bhatnagar (PW-2 ). After due investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant. ( 3 ) IN the trial Court, appellant abjured the guilt thereby he was tried for the commission of offence punishable under Section 307, I. P. C. After the trial, learned trial court found him guilty of having committed the aforesaid offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. l. 000/ -. Hence, appellant has filed this appeal. ( 4 ) COMPLAINANT Laxman Singh has been examined by the prosecution as PW-7. He has deposed in his statement that appellant took out a pistol and fired it on him. l. 000/ -. Hence, appellant has filed this appeal. ( 4 ) COMPLAINANT Laxman Singh has been examined by the prosecution as PW-7. He has deposed in his statement that appellant took out a pistol and fired it on him. He has further stated that the bullet hit him on right side of his abdomen and he has further deposed that as he sustained the gunshot injury, he ran away from the spot, but he was chased and caught by the appellant and his companions and after that appellant struck him with knife. ( 5 ) DR. Suresh Chandra Vyas (PW-3) had examined complainant Laxman Singh (PW-7 ). This witness has not stated that there was any gunshot injury on the person of injured Laxman Singh. On the other hand, he has stated in paragraph 5 of his statement that he has mentioned in Ex. P/8 in reply to query made by the Police that injured was not having any bullet nor any burns that is why he has not mentioned any gunshot injury in MLC report. Dr. D. K. Bhatnagar (PW-2) has deposed that Laxman singh S/o Roop Singh aged 30 years was referred to him by Dr. Vyas for X-Ray Examination. This witness took X-Ray of his skull, right forearm, right hand index and middle fingers, pelvis, right thigh with upper one third of hip joint and plain abdomen. According to the X-Ray Report (Ex. P/4), no bony injury has been found and near right hip joint radiopaque shadow indicating the presence of some metallic substance was found. There is no evidence to the effect that any bullet was recovered from the body of the injured Laxman Singh. Medical Report (Ex. P/6) clearly shows that there was no gunshot injury on the person of laxman Singh. No firearm used and cartridges etc. have been recovered by the prosecution. The prosecution has also not assigned any reason for not effecting the recovery of the firearm from the appellant. ( 6 ) LAXMAN Singh (PW-7) has not only deposed that pistol was fired on him by the appellant, he has even stated that the bullet actually hit him on the right side of abdomen. Medical evidence does not in any way supports this part of version given by laxman Singh (PW-7 ). ( 6 ) LAXMAN Singh (PW-7) has not only deposed that pistol was fired on him by the appellant, he has even stated that the bullet actually hit him on the right side of abdomen. Medical evidence does not in any way supports this part of version given by laxman Singh (PW-7 ). The absence of any gunshot or firearm injury, clearly falsify this part of the testimony of Laxman Singh (PW-7 ). ( 7 ) ACCORDING to Laxman Singh (PW 7), incident took place in two parts. In first part, he sustained a firearm injury by the shot fired from pistol by the appellant. In second part, he was chased and caught hold by the appellant and his two companions near the field of Kishan Singh when he ran away after getting hurt by the shot and then appellant again tried to shoot him but pistol did not got fired then, he was struck with a knife by the appellant. As already pointed out, the version regarding the first part of the incident is clearly falsified by the medical evidence. There is no evidence regarding the use of firearm i. e. pistol, in the incident except the version of Laxman Singh (P. W. 7) which is not reliable, in the wake of medical evidence. Testimonies of Devram (P. W. 8) and ganesh Ram (P. W. 9) are of no use in this regard. They have not seen appellant firing or even present on or running away from the scene of occurrence. They were told by laxman Singh (P. W. 7) himself that he was shot by the appellant, when they arrived on the spot on hearing cries. Excepting the assertion of Laxman Singh (P. W. 7) there is no evidence to the effect that pistol was fired. His version that he sustained bullet injury on abdomen is not supported by medical evidence and is apparently false. ( 8 ) COMPLAINANT Laxman Singh (P. W. 7) has made a clearly false statement in regard of the first part of the incident. He stated falsely that he sustained gunshot injury. His falsehood cannot be treated a sort of exaggeration and ignored. It is of such a nature that it may render the entire testimony and thereby the version regarding the second part of the incident highly doubtful. He stated falsely that he sustained gunshot injury. His falsehood cannot be treated a sort of exaggeration and ignored. It is of such a nature that it may render the entire testimony and thereby the version regarding the second part of the incident highly doubtful. ( 9 ) LAXMAN Singh (P. W. 7) has deposed that when appellant and his friends caught him near the field of Kishan Singh, appellant had again tried to fire pistol on him, but it did not get fire, it was then that appellant took out a knife and struck him with the knife. He has stated that knife blows were dealt on his head and right hand. Dr. Suresh Chandra Vyas (P. W. 3) found incised as well as lacerated wounds. There is no evidence to the effect that these two types of wounds could have been caused by the one and the same weapon. Laxman Singh (P. W. 7) states use of knife only. He has also not described how the contusion and abrasions were caused. ( 10 ) LAXMAN Singh (P. W. 7) has stated that Devram (P. W. 8), Ganesh Ram (P. W. 9) and Ishwar Singh (P. W. 6) arrived at the spot of hearing his cries. He deposes that on seeing them appellant and his two companions ran away from there riding on the motor cycle towards village Palsoda. Any of the aforesaid witnesses does not say that he saw appellant running away. Devram (P. W. 8) has stated that he heard Laxman Singh (P. W. 7) crying that Ishwar Singh (P. W. 6) is beating him. Laxman Singh (P. W. 7) himself has not stated any where that he raised cry saying that Ishwar Singh (P. W. 6) is beating him. He has not stated that he told Dev Ram (P. W. 8) that appellant struck him with knife or caused him firearm but Dev Ram (P. W. 8) and Laxman Singh (P. W. 7) told him that ishwar Singh (P. W. 6) shot him with pistol. He states that Laxman Singh (P. W. 7) told him that his head injury was also caused by firing of bullet of the pistol. Ganesh Ram (P. W. 9) has also deposed in the similar manner. According to the prosecution evidence dev Ram (P. W. 8) and Ganesh Ram (P. W. 9) reached on the scene of crime. He states that Laxman Singh (P. W. 7) told him that his head injury was also caused by firing of bullet of the pistol. Ganesh Ram (P. W. 9) has also deposed in the similar manner. According to the prosecution evidence dev Ram (P. W. 8) and Ganesh Ram (P. W. 9) reached on the scene of crime. It is clear from the statements of Dev Ram (P. W. 8) and Ganesh Ram (P. W. 9) that Laxman Singh (P. W. 7) did not tell them the fact that appellant struck him with knife and caused injuries by knife. In the above circumstances, the entire version of Laxman Singh (P. W. 7) becomes doubtful and it is not safe to base the conviction of the appellant and the testimony of Laxman Singh (P. W. 7 ). ( 11 ) LEARNED trial Court has not viewed the evidence from the above angle and it has not appreciated the evidence properly. The conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained in law as it is based on unreliable testimony. Learned trial Court has erred in accepting the testimony of injured Laxman singh (P. W. 7) and basing the conviction of the appellant on it. ( 12 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 307, IPC. His personal bond and bail bond are hereby discharged. Appeal allowed. .