A.B. Pal, J.:- The appellant Sri Prafulla Chandra Das was serving as L/NK in Central Reserve Police Force (for short C.R.P.F) in the year 1998. On 20.06.1998 he was on duty in A/49 C.R.P.F. camp, at Chechua, under Ampi Nagar Police Station of South Tripura district. Bahadur Kohli (P.W-1) was then the Camp Commandant. A health camp was organized by the CR- Chechua, with the medical officer (P.W-9) providing treatment to the patients right from 7.30 a.m. The prosecution version is that at 1.30 p.m. when the Camp Commandant (P.W-1) and the Doctor (P.W-9) were proceeding for taking lunch inside the camp, the appellant suddenly confronted the Camp Commandant and entered into an altercation. He was instantly over-powered by two persons. But sometime after, the appellant allegedly opened fire indiscriminately though none was injured. He fired 15 rounds from his service rifle S.L.R 7.62 mm. Again he was over powered and later handed over to the Ampi Police Station with an FIR against him. An investigation followed and ended into a charge sheet against the appellant under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) and 27 of the Arms Act. He was dismissed from service even before completion of the trial which commenced with framing of charge on 12.1.2000 by the learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur. At the end of the trial the appellant was found guilty under Section 307 and 427 of IPC and convicted accordingly. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 307 IPC and a fine of Rs. 1000 under Section 427 IPC, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for another three months. The charge under the Arms Act failed. Challenging the conviction and sentence in ST-74(ST/A)/99 the appellant is before this court in the present appeal. 2. I have heard Mr. A.C. Bhowmik,, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned special P.P. for the State-respondent. 3. Mr. Bhowmik submits that there is absolutely no credible and dependable evidence against the appellant to sustain the conviction under Section 307/427 of IPC. Ten witnesses were examined by prosecution to establish the charges against the appellant. Except P. Ws 1 to 5 who are the complainant himself and other CRPF Jawans under him of the Chechua camp claiming to have witnessed the appellant shooting from his life, the only independent eye witness is Dr. Ten witnesses were examined by prosecution to establish the charges against the appellant. Except P. Ws 1 to 5 who are the complainant himself and other CRPF Jawans under him of the Chechua camp claiming to have witnessed the appellant shooting from his life, the only independent eye witness is Dr. N. Jamatia (P.W-9) whose evidence certainly carries much weight. For obvious reasons P.Ws. 2 to 4, the Jawans of the camp under P.W-1, would be more inclined to support their Camp Commandant who lodged the FIR against the appellant alleging he attempted to kill the Commandant. In the FIR it is the version of the Camp Commandant that on the day before i.e. on 19.6.1998 the appellant approached him to allow to go to Teliamura to make a phone-call to his to his house where his old mother was seriously sick. The Commandant turned down the request saying that he would be permitted to go only on the following day, i.e. on 20.6.1998. The appellant insisted and made some arguments. But the Commandment was adamant. The matter, however, ended there with no other re-action from the appellant. The question which then confronts, why the appellant should run amok and open indiscriminate firing from his rifle on the day, i.e. 20.6.1998, he was to go Teliamura with permission already obtained for making a call to his house. The alleged occurrence had taken place at 13:25 hours which indicates till that time he was not allowed to go for the call. In his deposition P. W-1 stated that when he was proceeding with the doctor(P. W-9) for lunch inside the camp, the appellant wanted to speak to him and when refused he made some altercation and fired two rounds. Two jawans quickly overpowered him. The Commandant then asked the appellant why he was behaving like a mad man. However, the appellant was taken away. The Camp Commandant requested the doctor to leave the place. Accordingly he left. Thereafter, the Camp Commandant entered into the room and took a safer place for his protection. Just at that time he realised that there was firing from all directions around the lunch spot. After some time the appellant entered through the main door into the room where the camp commandant and others had taken shelter. P.W. 1 saw the appellant entering into the room slowly. Just at that time he realised that there was firing from all directions around the lunch spot. After some time the appellant entered through the main door into the room where the camp commandant and others had taken shelter. P.W. 1 saw the appellant entering into the room slowly. Then he and others caught hold of him and snatched away the SLR from his hand. Thereafter the appellant and his SLR were handed over to the police. The S.L.R was seized on 21.6.1998. This being exactly what P. W-1 deposed before the trial court, the questions that have surfaced therefrom are how the appellant, who was over-powered after he had fired two rounds initially, could come out and fire 15 rounds again, or why the Camp Commandant had to advice the doctor (P.W-9) to leave the place without taking lunch even after the appellant was taken into custody, or why he and other witnesses had to take shelter in a safer place even after the appellant was overpowered. This leads to another question, if the appellant was in their custody after he fired two rounds in the initial encounter, whether there was any other good reason for the Camp Commandant and other jawans to fear further attack on their lives from persons other than the appellant. 4. The quest for this answer Mr. Bhowmik has pointed out that the statement of the doctor, if carefully gone into would solve the puzzle. Dr. Jamatia has stated that he heard there was an altercation between a CRPF personnel and the Camp In-Charge (P. W-1). However, when along with camp in-charge and others he was proceeding towards the lunch spot some miscreants suddenly appeared with guns and aimed towards them. The relevant part of his deposition being very important for disposal of this case is reproduced below:- "As soon as we reached near the quarter of Koholi some miscreants appeared with guns and aimed towards us for shooting and out of fear we moved higher and thither to save our lives and myself rushed on the top of the tilla and took shelter in a centry post. And from there I heard the sound of firing inside the camp premises. And from there I heard the sound of firing inside the camp premises. After some time I found one CRPF personnel was apprehended by other CRPF personnels and also found assaulting him and without taking lunch myself and others i.e. Partha Pratim Chakraborty and Bahadur left the place" What is materially significant in the above statement of P.W-9 is the presence of some miscreants confronting the Camp Commandant, the doctor and others who were proceeding for lunch. This only independent witness has not stated whether among the miscreants there was any CRPF personnel. Only some time after the shooting he found one CRPF personal apprehended and assaulted by other CRPF Jawans. The question which would loom to shadow the prosecution story is who were those miscreants and whether they had opened fire from all sides indiscriminately. If this independent witness is believed then the undisclosed part of the prosecution story could be that the Camp Commandant and other Jawans had to take shelter in a safer place when there was an attack from other miscreants, not from the appellant who was already over-powered. It is submitted by Mr. Bhowmik that Chechua Camp was located in an extremist affected area. In all probability, in order to save them from extremist attack the Camp Commandant had advised the doctor to quickly leave the place. Thereafter all of them had taken safe-shelter. The story that the appellant fired 15 rounds indiscriminately from him even after he was over-powered and taken into custody pales into in-significance as untrustworthy. It is difficult to believe the story that a jawan who fired blank two rounds and then was apprehended was immediately released with the gun for another indiscriminate firing by him. It is also difficult to believe that a trained jawan like the appellant aimed at the informant and fired 15 rounds to kill him every round strangely missing. That apart, he had no reason to shoot at any other CRPF personnel, as according to the prosecution story his grievance was against the Camp Commandant only who refused to allow him to make a phone call to his house whether his mother was seriously ill. Another strange thing to be noticed in the deposition of the P. W-1 is that after the end of the indiscriminate shooting the appellant entered into the lunch spot slowly and peacefully. Another strange thing to be noticed in the deposition of the P. W-1 is that after the end of the indiscriminate shooting the appellant entered into the lunch spot slowly and peacefully. From such behaviour can it be said that the man was responsible for indiscriminate firing from all sides of the camp Can one man fire from all sides? Why prosecution has suppressed the part of the story disclosed by Dr. Jamatia (P. W-9) that a group of miscreants attacked the camp. Dark shadow gets darker round the prosecution when the case is brought to closer scrutiny. 5. Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Special P.P has made a strenuous argument to bring home his point that as the other four jawans had no enmity with the appellant there is absolutely no reason to discard their evidence. If in a case, such as this, the offender goes unpunished, "he discipline of the force like the CRPF would be the first casualty, he submits. 6. While appreciating this contention by Mr. Debnath, it should not be lost sight of at the same time that there was an attack on the camp from some miscreants on the relevant date and time who fired indiscriminately, though causing no injury to anybody. As there is no reason to disbelieve the independent witness (P.W-9) about an attack by some miscreants, it was the duty of the prosecution to focus on that aspect of the case to bring about transparency. The reason is that according to the prosecution case itself the appellant fired two rounds initially but then he was over-powered. It is not at all believable that he was immediately released along with his gun. That being so, all other rounds must have been fired by the group of miscreants, who were, in all probability a group of extremists. It is thus clear that the appellant has been falsely implicated and framed at the instance of P. W-l. 7. As I have already noticed, it is difficult to believe that if the intention of the appellant was to kill the Camp Commandant, he could not have missed all the 15 rounds, if those were really fired from his SLR only. It is again difficult to believe that after firing two rounds he was apprehended only to be immediately released with the SLR to enable him to fire 13 more rounds. It is again difficult to believe that after firing two rounds he was apprehended only to be immediately released with the SLR to enable him to fire 13 more rounds. The expert examined the SLR long after the occurrence without any clear observation whether all the 15 rounds were fired from the said SLR. There is no evidence to show that at the relevant time when indiscriminate firing had taken place, the SLR was in possession of the appellant herein. Though it is possible that the appellant might have fired two rounds and then was over­powered, it is very much evident that just at that time there was an extremist attack on the camp. This provided an opportunity to P.W-1 to implicate the appellant falsely with all the other rounds fired by the miscreants, suppressing the extremist attack altogether. Another significant aspect of the prosecution case is that the appellant did not violently re- act when his request to go to Teh'amura to make a phone call to his house was rejected on 19.6.1998. According to P.W-1, he was permitted to go on 20.6.1998. If that is so, the appellant could not have any reason to be violent on 20.6.1998. It is trite to observe that in the armed forces even serious personnel difficulties of the dedicated jawans are not always given due importance which is a reason for several mishaps reported more often than not. In the case on hand the appellant's mother was seriously sick and in spite of his repeated request he was not allowed to go to Teliamura only for making a call to his house. But he maintained restraints and did not act violently, presumably because he was assured of being permitted to go to Teliamura for making a call on the following day. He had, therefore, no reason to run amok on that day. The deposition of P.W-9 shows flip side of the story how an extremists attack or indiscriminate firing by some miscreants could be falsely and unethically fasfcned to the appellant. The consequence of the same came to be a catastrophe for the appellant who not only lost his job but had to land in jail to suffer imprisonment for no fault of him. 8. The consequence of the same came to be a catastrophe for the appellant who not only lost his job but had to land in jail to suffer imprisonment for no fault of him. 8. For the reasons and discussions aforementioned this appeal has merit and the same is allowed setting aside and quashing the judgment impugned whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced. If the appellant has been dismissed from service only because of the criminal proceeding and the conviction aforementioned, then he must be reinstated in service forthwith with all financial benefits which would have been admissible to him had he not been dismissed for this false and baseless criminal case. It is left to the competent authority in the C.R.P.F to take appropriate action against the Camp Commandant (P.W-1) who conspired and executed the whole thing. Appeal allowed.