JUDGMENT By Court.-This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 26.8.2002 and 27.8.2002 respectively passed by 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Sessions Trial No. 60 of 1996 whereby and whereunder all the appellants stand convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and appellant no. 1 Ram Pravesh Singh was sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonments for seven years and three years respectively whereas appellant nos. 2 to 4 were sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for five years and three years respectively. 2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that in the evening of 17.10.1994 at 4.30 P.M., P.W 5 heard his uncle Jagarnath Singh (P.W1) raising alarms was fleeing towards their house from riverside. As the informant was working in Chilly field situated nearby alongwith P.W 2, P.W 3, they went towards their uncle and saw that the appellants were chasing P.W 1 with firearms in their hands. Further stated, when the informant asked the appellants why they were chasing Jagarnath Singh, appellant Ram Pravesh Singh fired from his gun, which resulted in pellet injuries on the informant (P.W 5) and P.W 2 Awadesh Singh. Thereafter the appellants fled away. The reason behind this incident is said to be suspicions on part of the appellants that P.W1 was grazing his buffalo in their fields. 3. The informant alongwith witnesses arrived at Patan Sadar Hospital and gave his statement before the police at 7.00 P.M., on the basis of which Patan Police Station Case No. 132 of 1994 under Sections 307134 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act was registered. The police investigated the case and finally submitted charge-sheel against all the appellants for the offences mentioned above. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed false prosecution. However, the learned trial court after evaluating the evidence before it found and held all of them guilty under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and appellant under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced them separately as stated above on both counts. 4. The present appeal has been preferred mainly on the grounds that the learned trial court has not considered the improbability of the prosecution case. 4. The present appeal has been preferred mainly on the grounds that the learned trial court has not considered the improbability of the prosecution case. It was also asserted that the learned court below has not considered the land dispute going on between the parties, which prompted the prosecution to lodge this false case. According to Mr. T.R. Bajaj, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, the incident took place when P.W. 6 Ram Sakal Singh was trying to fire upon the appellants for disputes regarding grazing of fields, the informant and his brother tried to resist, resulting in these pellet injuries. Learned counsel further submitted that this story of defence gets strengthened from the fact that the pellet injury found on P.W. 2 and P.W. 5 were found having blackening and charring marks on their persons by doctor (P.W. 4). It is also submitted that non-examination of the investigating officer as well as non-production of the arms, raise reasonable doubts against the prosecution story. Therefore, the appellants may be acquitted of the charges. 5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposed these contentions on the grounds that the injuries found on P.W. 2 and P.W. 5 are sufficient to prove that the appellants have committed the offence. 6. I have gone though the materials on records in this context with the submissions made above. The prosecution story has been supported by P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 4, P.W. 5, and P.W. 6, in details. It is true that the prosecution has not brought before the trial court any arms said to have been used by the appellants neither the investigating officer has been examined. However, the injuries found by P.W. 4 on the person of P.W. 2, and P.W. 5, have been proved that they got pellet injuries on their person. According to P.W. 2, and P.W. 5 both injured, the fire was made by appellant Ram Parvesh Singh upon them when they asked them why they were chasing P.W. 1. P.W. 1 has supported the prosecution case in details. However, during cross-examination of this witness has admitted that when appellant Ram Pravesh Singh fired upon him, he was just ten steps behind P.W. 2. He further admitted that at that time, the appellant was nearly 100 steps from them. This fact has been supported by P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 5, and P.W. 6. However, during cross-examination of this witness has admitted that when appellant Ram Pravesh Singh fired upon him, he was just ten steps behind P.W. 2. He further admitted that at that time, the appellant was nearly 100 steps from them. This fact has been supported by P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 5, and P.W. 6. According to injured P.W. 2 vide paragraph-8 P.W. 1, was at a distance of 200-250 yards while the appellant was running towards his father from 50-60 yards. He further admitted that when the fire was made, the appellant was at a distance of 200 yards from them. P.W. 3 similarly admitted vide paragraph-9 that the appellants were at a distance of 30 yards when fire was made. P.W.5 during cross-examination vide paragraph-10 that when the incident took place P.W.1 was at a distance of 50-60 yards from them and from there the appellants fired. According to P.W. 6, when he went there and tried to intervene, he was fired upon by appellant Ram Pravesh Singh and the bullet missing him caused injury upon P.W. 2 and P.W. 5. The fact, therefore remains that the fire was made from distance. The injury report proved by P.W.4 mentioned that there was charring marks on the wounds stipulate that injuries were caused with fire from close distance. This fact has been discussed by the trial court vide paragraph-12 of the impugned judgment. The learned trial court having discarded the opinion of P.W. 4, found and held all the appellants guilty under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. The learned trial court has further found and held all the appellants guilty for offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act on evidence brought before it. However, it is apparent from the facts on records that the firearms were used by only appellant Ram Pravesh Singh and according to prosecution, the said single fire coming from his gun resulted in injuries on P.W. 2 and P.W. 5. These injuries were caused by firearms is not denied by the defence. The medical reports mentioned that the pellets were recovered from these injuries. Defence has brought a story that when Ram Sakal Singh was trying to fire upon the appellants, PW 2 and P.W 5 grappled with him resulting in those pellet injuries on them. These injuries were caused by firearms is not denied by the defence. The medical reports mentioned that the pellets were recovered from these injuries. Defence has brought a story that when Ram Sakal Singh was trying to fire upon the appellants, PW 2 and P.W 5 grappled with him resulting in those pellet injuries on them. This fact is apparently farfetched suggestion and afterthought, as the appellants in their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have not stated anything like that. However, the fact remains that only appellant Ram Pravesh Singh has fired upon and pellet injuries were found on PW 2 and PW 5. In the circumstances, where consistent ocular evidence supports the prosecution case to the extent the Ram Pravesh Singh has fired upon resulting in injuries on P.W 2 and PW 5, I find nothing on record to disbelieve this portion of prosecution case. The learned trial court has also accepted this version. However, the prosecution has not been proved beyond doubts that all the appellants have got this common intention to cause bullet injuries on PW 2 and PW 5 further to cause death. The prosecution story further suffers from non-examination of investigating officer and non-recovery of any arms to be strengthened from case against all other appellants. Therefore, all the appellants except appellant Ram Pravesh Singh are found and held not guilty of the charges under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. They further deserve to be acquitted of the charges. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence against the remaining appellants are hereby set aside. They are further released from the liabilities of bail bonds. 8. However, from the facts available on records, I find and hold that appellant Ram Pravesh Singh has caused pellet injury upon PW 2 and P.W 5. In view of the conviction under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code having been set aside, he is found and held guilty under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction of the appellant stands accordingly modified to the extent. Appellant Ram Pravesh Singh has remained in custody from 17.4.1995 to 2.8.1995 before commitment and after conviction from 27.8.2002 to 22.11.2002 more than six months. The incident took place on dispute regarding grazing of fields. The conviction of the appellant stands accordingly modified to the extent. Appellant Ram Pravesh Singh has remained in custody from 17.4.1995 to 2.8.1995 before commitment and after conviction from 27.8.2002 to 22.11.2002 more than six months. The incident took place on dispute regarding grazing of fields. Keeping n view of the long drawn trial and he laving remained in custody for more than six months and the nature of injuries found on P.W. 2 and P.W. 5, I find and hold that the ends of justice would be served properly if the appellant is directed to serve sentence for six months. Appellant Ram Pravesh Singh having remained in custody for more than six months in custody, he is directed to be released from the liabilities of bail bonds. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed with modification.