Judgment M.M.Aggarwal, J. 1. Sukhwinder, Rajinder and Sanjay appellants in the above mentioned appeals had been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar vide judgment/order dated 15.4.2002 for the offence under Sections 307/186 IPC and 61 of Excise Act. For the offence under Section 186 IPC, they were sentenced to undergo RI for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- each in default of payment of fine, they were to undergo imprisonment for a period of seven days, for the offence under Section 307 IPC, they were sentenced to undergo RI for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each in default of payment of fine, they were to undergo RI for one month and for the offence under Section 61(1)(a) of Excise Act, they were sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, they were to further undergo imprisonment for a period of fifteen days. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Prosecution case against the appellants is that the police party headed by ASI Dharmpal consisting of HC Jagbir Singh, Constable Siripal and Constable Ishwar Singh of P.S. Sadar, Hisar had got secret information on 16.10.1997 when they were in police Jeep bearing No. HR-20-B/0294 and were on patrolling duty. Secret information was that illicit liquor was being smuggled from village Piranwali to Delhi in Truck No. HYH/589. Accordingly a nakabandi at Bagla Road was held by the police by parking the jeep. Then truck bearing No. HYH/589 was seen coming from the side of village Piranwali. A torch signal was given to stop the truck but when the truck reached near the police party, the driver accelerated the speed suddenly and tried to run over the police party thereby hitting against the parked jeep. However, fortunately the police party escaped unhurt but the truck succeeded in going towards Fatehbad side without stopping on the nakabandi. It was chased by the police party. ASI Dharampal field two shots from his revolver but failed to burst the rear tyres of the truck. ASI Dharampal flashed a message through the wireless set to police stations Agroha, Adampur and Sadar Hisar disclosing the facts and asking them to lay a naka. It was chased by the police party. ASI Dharampal field two shots from his revolver but failed to burst the rear tyres of the truck. ASI Dharampal flashed a message through the wireless set to police stations Agroha, Adampur and Sadar Hisar disclosing the facts and asking them to lay a naka. Truck bearing No. HYH/589 was driven in a zig-zag manner and it was diverted towards Adampur. Another police party of Police Station Adampur headed by ASI Raj Kumar consisting of Constable Sahi Ram and Constable Rajinder Singh also laid a nakabandi by parking Jeep No. HR-20-D/295 but the truck did not stop inspite of the signal given by ASI Raj Kumar and it also tried to run over the police party headed by ASI Raj Kumar. However, police party headed by ASI Dharampal in Jeep No. HR-20B/294 as well as another police party headed by ASI Raj Kumar chased the truck, which was diverted from Adampur to Agroha and then further diverted from Argoha to Hisar. Truck was driven towards Nangthala from village Landhari. On this road, ASI Raj Kumar fired 5 shots from his revolver whereas ASI Dharampal also fired 3 shots from his revolver. HC Jagbir also fired 5 shots from his carbine. Then the driver of the truck drove the truck on its right side on the katcha path. Dharampal ASI again fired two shots from his revolver whereas HC Jagbir Singh fired 5 shots from his carbine and ASI Raj Kumar also fired two shots. Constable Rajinder also fired four shots from his .303 riffle which hit the rear tyres of the truck. The tyre bursted and the truck stopped. There were four persons in the truck. Two persons namely Sukhwinder Singh and Sanjay were apprehended at the spot whereas another person namely Rajinder was known to I.O. Dharampal and name of the fourth person, who was driving the truck was learnt as Parontha Dhanak, who could not be arrested. 3. From the truck 10 tubes each containing 100 bottles of illicit liquor were recovered out of which samples were drawn and sent to the Chemical Examiner. Thereafter, accused Rajinder surrendered but the fourth person namely Parontha Dhanak could not be traced. Then Sukhwinder Singh, Sanjay and Rajinder were put to trial. Case was found to be duly proved and the accused were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 4. Thereafter, accused Rajinder surrendered but the fourth person namely Parontha Dhanak could not be traced. Then Sukhwinder Singh, Sanjay and Rajinder were put to trial. Case was found to be duly proved and the accused were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 4. Counsel for the appellants had argued that the accused were not armed with any weapon. They had not fired any shot. From the statement of Jagbir Singh HC, who appeared as PW-4, it was pointed out that when the truck reached near their Jeep, then the speed of the truck was accelerated and the truck tried to run over the police party but it was not there that truck had hit jeep. It was further pointed out from his statement that there were four persons in the truck who tried to run away. Sanjay and Sukhwinder were apprehended at the spot. Then on interrogation they disclosed the name of other two persons namely Rajinder and Parontha. 5. It was argued that Jagbir Singh did not say anywhere that Rajinder was identified by Dharampal ASI as known to him earlier. From the statement of ASI Dharampal, it was again pointed out that the accused had tried to run over the police party. This witness had stated that Rajinder accused, present in the Court was known to him earlier but it was argued that it was night time and it was not possible to identify any person at the spot and no identification parade was arranged after the arrest of Rajinder. From the statement of PW-6 ASI Raj Kumar, who had organised another leading party to chase and apprehend the truck, it was pointed out that admittedly Parontha was driver of the truck and if there was any attempt to run over them that was by that driver, who has not faced trial. It was argued that under these circumstances, no offence under Section 307 IPC was made out against the present appellants. 6. On behalf of the State, it was argued that truck is a big vehicle and when a signal was given to the truck to stop and it slowed the speed near the police party and then accelerated then had the police party not saved themselves, truck would have run over them and that the accused had done this act with intention and knowledge to commit murder. 7. 7. From the facts and circumstances and sequence of events given, it would appear that the truck was loaded with heavy quantity of illicit liquor and when the police party held nakabadi or otherwise had tried to stop the truck and chased it, then efforts of the driver had been to somehow make an escape and dodge the police and run away. Section 307 IPC is as under: "307. Attempt to murder - Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty or murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to {imprisonment for life}, or to such punishment as is here-in-before mentioned. Attempt by life convicts - [When any person offending under this section is under sentence of {imprisonment for life}, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death]". 8. As per the statement of the prosecution witnesses as many as 24 arms were fired by the police, which would have scared the occupants of the truck to make further efforts to run away. Act of accelerating the speed of the truck in an effort to escape at night time when the front lights of vehicle will normally be on and the statement of police witnesses that in this way an attempt was made to run over them will not possibly bring that act to be with such intention of knowledge and under such circumstances, that if by that act death is caused, then offender will by guilty of murder since the act is to scare the police party so that they give way to the truck to make its escape. In any case, Parontha, driver of the truck did not face trial. Under these circumstances, I hold that this was not a case for the offence under Section 307 IPC. 9. The accused were not armed with any weapon and did not fire on the police party although earlier prosecution version was that the truck had hit the jeep but the witnesses did not say so. Under these circumstances, I hold that this was not a case for the offence under Section 307 IPC. 9. The accused were not armed with any weapon and did not fire on the police party although earlier prosecution version was that the truck had hit the jeep but the witnesses did not say so. It was stated that the speed of the truck was accelerated and the truck tried to run over the police party. It is a fact that Jeep was not damaged since in this very jeep, police party continued following the truck. 10. In this case, Sanjay and Sukhwinder were apprehended and arrested at the spot whereas accused Rajinder was not apprehended at the spot. HC Jagbir Singh does not say anywhere that Rajinder was known and was identified by Dharampal ASI, while running from the spot. He stated that on interrogation from Sanjay and Sukhwinder Singh, names of Rajinder and Parontha were disclosed. No identification parade had been arranged after the arrest of Rajinder accused to get him identified from the witnesses. Under these circumstances, case against accused Rajinder is doubtful. 11. Case for the offence under Sections 186 IPC and 61 of the Excise Act is duly proved as against Sukhwinder Singh and Sanjay as they obstructed the public servants from discharging their duties and had kept in possession illicit liquor. From the above discussion, appeal filed by Rajinder is accepted. He is acquitted whereas accused Sukhwinder and Sanjay are also acquitted of the charge for the offence under Section 307 IPC whereas their appeal as far as conviction for the offence under Sections 186 IPC and 61 Excise Act is concerned, is dismissed.