JUDGMENT D.P. Singh, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 6.12.2000 passed in Sessions Trial No. 140 of 1999, whereby and whereunder the learned 3rd Assistant Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur held all the appellants guilty under Sections 307/34 IPC and convicted and sentenced them to undergo RI for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each and in default of payment, further undergo simple imprisonment of six months. 2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that in the evening of 29.4.1998 at about 4.30 PM, the informant Sinu Rao was getting the clothes pressed at the shop by Devendra Rajak @ Sethia, situated in Kadma, Jamshedpur, when the appellants arrived there on a scooter. It is further alleged that the appellants fired upon him but the bullet could not hit him. Thereafter the appellants fled away abusing him that all will meet the same fate. The informant reported the matter to Kadma police at about 6.30 PM naming these two appellants to have fired upon him, on the basis of which Kadma P.S. Case No. 49/98 was registered under Sections 307/34 IPC as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act. 3. The police investigated the case an finally submitted charge sheet against the appellants under Sections 307/34 IPC. The case was committed for trial by the court of sessions. The learned lower court charged the appellants for the alleged offences on 26.5.99 and held both of them guilty of the offences under Sections 307/34 IPC and sentenced them to serve RI for ten years as well as to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each and in default of payment to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 4. The present appeal has been preferred on the ground that the learned lower court has relied upon the evidence of the informant and I.O. ignoring the fact that the eye witness of the occurrence did not support the allegations. It is further submitted that no corroborative evidence is available in the lower court records justifying the conviction. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellants further submitted that in view of the admitted facts on record that nothing has happened to the informant and no corroborative evidence is available on record. Thus the conviction of the appellants is fit to be set aside. 6. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellants further submitted that in view of the admitted facts on record that nothing has happened to the informant and no corroborative evidence is available on record. Thus the conviction of the appellants is fit to be set aside. 6. The learned APP opposed this contention of the ground that the appellants have been named to have fired upon the informant. 7. I have carefully gone through the entire materials available on records. In the present case five witnesses were examined including the I.O. and the informant. PW 1, 2 and 3 have been declared hostile. Out of which, PW 2, Devendra Rajak @ Sethia, is said to have witnessed the incident. He denied to have any information regarding the occurrence. PW 5, the I.O., has admitted that he did not find any injury on the body of the informant nor he found any empty cartridge or khokha at the spot. He has further submitted that he did not obtain sanction for prosecution under Section 27 of the Arms Act. PW 4, the informant, has supported his earlier version before the police and proved his signature on it, Ext.1. According to his version, the bullet missed him and caused a hole on the wall, but this fact has not been supported by PW 5, as he has said that he found only black mark on the wall. This informant has further admitted, vide para 5, that he could not see whether empty cartridge was seized by I.O. or not. This version is also disputed by PW 5, when he said that he did not see any such empty cartridge. 8. In such view of the fact, the version of the informant has not been corroborated by any material on record. In absence of possible material evidence as well as the eye witness, the conviction of the appellants under Sections 307/34 IPC cannot be sustained. 9. Having regard to above mentioned facts and circumstances, I find that the appellants deserve to be acquitted of the charges. 10. In the result, this appeal is allowed and judgment of conviction and sentence dated 6th December, 2000 is set aside. As the appellants are on bail, they are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.