JUDGMENT Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. - By filing this criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C., the accused appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 23.6.2006 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Chomu (for short the 'learned trial Court') in Sessions Case No. 6/2005, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as under : 307 I.P.C. ; Seven years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, accused appellant shall further undergo three months simple imprisonment. 353 I.P.C. : One year simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, each accused-appellants shall further undergo three months simple imprisonment. 3/25 of the Arms Act : One year simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo three months simple imprisonment. All sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. Brief facts of the case are that on 16.9.2003, PW-2 Dashrath Singh, Head Constable in Police Station Samod, has lodged a written report Ex.P-3 before the Police Station Samod District Jaipur (Rural) stating inter alia that in the evening of that day at about 8.35 P.M., a message was received from the Control Room, Jaipur in the manner that two boys, who were wearing black shirt and jeans and out of them, one was fatty, were stopping the truck near Radawas and they were also armed with pistol. It was further stated in the report Ex.P-3 that PW-13 Virendra Sigh, SHO had asked PW-2 Dashrath Singh, HC, PW-5 Girdharilal, PW-3 Sriram Choudhary, and PW-4 Chhotu Khan, ASI to go on the spot and in compliance of that, they reached on the spot where they found that from the side of Samod, a motor cycle was coming on which two persons were sitting and that motor cycle was got stopped and the person who was driving the motor cycle started running away from the scene and at that time, PW-6 Ummed Singh also came there. It was further stated in the report Ex.P-3 that the person who was sitting on the back seat of the motor-cycle, had made fire towards PW-4 Chhotu Khan. It was further stated in the report Ex.P-3 that the person who was sitting on the back seat of the motor-cycle, had made fire towards PW-4 Chhotu Khan. It was further stated in the report Ex.P-3 that in the meanwhile, the person, who had run away from the scene, was chased and caught hold by PW-2 Dashrath Singh and PW-5 Girdharilal. It was further stated in the report Ex.P-3 that the person, who had made fire towards PW-4 Chhotu Khan, was caught-hold by PW-4 Chhotu Khan and PW-3 Sriram and the pistol was also snatched from his possession. It was further stated in the report Ex.P-3 that on being asked, one boy disclosed his name as Bahadur Singh and another boy disclosed his name as Banti @ Lala @ Lalchand. It was further stated in the report Ex.P-3 that on being asked, both accused persons told that they were not having a valid licence to keep pistol.3. On the basis of this written report, the police registered an F.I.R. No. 200/2003, for the offence under Sections 333, 353, 307, 120-B I.P.C. and under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act.4. The police after investigation submitted challan against the accused appellants for the offence under Sections 333, 353, 307/34 I.P.C. and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act.5. The learned trial Court framed the charges against the accused appellants. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial in the matter.6. The prosecution in support of its case produced as many as 14 witnesses and certain documents were got exhibited. Thereafter, the statement of the accused appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and in defence he did not produce any evidence.7. The learned trial Court after hearing both the parties convicted and sentenced the accused appellant vide judgment 23.6.2006 as mentioned above. The accused appellant being aggrieved with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 23.6.2006 has preferred the instant appeal.8. PW-10 Dr. Rajgovind in his statement has stated that he has done operation of left lateral chest wall of PW-4 Chhotu Khan and thereafter, a bullet was taken out from his chest and it was sent to Medical Jurist PW-11 Dr. N.L. Hisaniya and he has prepared operation notes Ex.P-14.9. PW-11 Dr. PW-10 Dr. Rajgovind in his statement has stated that he has done operation of left lateral chest wall of PW-4 Chhotu Khan and thereafter, a bullet was taken out from his chest and it was sent to Medical Jurist PW-11 Dr. N.L. Hisaniya and he has prepared operation notes Ex.P-14.9. PW-11 Dr. N.L. Hisaniya is Medical Jurist, who has prepared injury report Ex.P-15 of PW-4 Chhotu and after seeing the operation notes Ex.P-14 and X-ray report Ex.P-16, he has opined that the injury No. 1 of PW-4 Chhotu Khan was found simple in nature and in X-ray report Ex.P-16, it has been clearly mentioned that no bone injury was seen on the chest. Thus, from the medical evidence, following facts have emerged : (a) That one injury was found on the chest of PW-4 Chhotu. (b) That the said injury was found simple in nature\after seeing the X-ray report Ex.P-16 and operation notes Ex.P-14. (c) That the doctors have not opined that the injury of PW-4 Chhotu Khan on the chest was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 10. PW-2 Dashrath Singh and PW-5 Girdhari Lal have admitted in the cross-examination that they have not seen who had fired on PW-4 Chhotu Khan. PW-5 Girdhari Lal has also stated that the person, who was caught hold by chasing, had mentioned his name as Banti, but later-on, that person disclosed his name as Bahadur Singh. PW-3 Sri Ram in his cross-examination admitted that there was scuffle between police party and the accused party, but no injury was caused to them. Statement of PW-4 Chhotu Khan was recorded twice, in which he stated that he does not know the accused appellant. PW-13 Vijendra Singh, admitted in his statement that no identification parade was got conducted in this case and in the fard of recovery and other papers prepared in this case, there was no independent witnesses. The statements of prosecution witnesses clearly reveal that in presence of PW-3 Sriram and PW-5 Girdharilal, all recoveries were made by PW-15 Vijendra Singh. PW-13 Vijendra Singh, admitted in his statement that no identification parade was got conducted in this case and in the fard of recovery and other papers prepared in this case, there was no independent witnesses. The statements of prosecution witnesses clearly reveal that in presence of PW-3 Sriram and PW-5 Girdharilal, all recoveries were made by PW-15 Vijendra Singh. PW-3 Sriram and Pw-5 Girdharilal are police officials attached with the Police Station of which PW-13 Vijendra Singh was SHO and they have admitted that no independent witnesses were taken by PW-13 Vijendra Singh, though there were many persons meaning thereby that the whole case has been planned by the police especially when in this case, injured Pw-4 Chhotu Khan is also a police official. Therefore, the accused appellant has been falsely implicated in this case by the police.11. Lastly he submits that the case of the prosecution does not travel beyond the provisions of Section 324 I.P.C. because PW-4 has received one injury on the chest and the same was found simple in nature and as per X-ray report Ex.P-16, no bone injury was found, as necessary ingredients for proving the charge under Section 307 I.P.C. are missing in this case as there was no previous enmity on the part of the accused appellant to cause any injury of the accused appellant to cause any injury to PW-4 Chhotu Khan, and further injury on the chest of PW-4 Chhotu Khan was found simple in nature with no bone injury and incident had taken place when there was no scuffle between the police party and accused party.12. The police has firstly arrested the accused, thereafter goods have been seized and after above, the police has registered an F.I.R. Such type of lodging of F.I.R. does not come in the purview of lodging the F.I.R. Therefore, it is not admissible in evidence. At the time of alleged offence, no eye witnesses were present, even though the police has made Dashrath Singh, Sriram Choudhary and Girdhari as eye-witnesses on the occurrence. The evidence of such eye-witnesses is not trustworthy. Ramdev, ASI was present at the site, but the prosecution has not produced the same. There is no signature of independent witnesses on the seizure memo. All the witnesses are police personnels and are interested one. Therefore, their evidence is not trustworthy in evidence. The evidence of such eye-witnesses is not trustworthy. Ramdev, ASI was present at the site, but the prosecution has not produced the same. There is no signature of independent witnesses on the seizure memo. All the witnesses are police personnels and are interested one. Therefore, their evidence is not trustworthy in evidence. Lastly he submits that Chhotu Khan, in his statement has stated that he cannot identify both the accused appellants namely Banti and Bahadur. Prosecution witnesses have made improvements, omissions and contradictions in their testimony.13. He submits that the prosecution has failed to establish ingredients for proving charge under Section 307 I.P.C. and at the most, the case of the prosecution does not travel beyond the provisions of Section 324 I.P.C.14. To support the case of the accused appellant, learned counsel for the accused appellant has placed reliance upon a judgment, Jalim Singh v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1/2004, reported in 2005(2) RCC 1112 , wherein this Court in the head note has held as under : "Penal Code, 1860 - , Ss. 307, 320, 324 r/w Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. -Allegedly accused appellant alongwith other 3 accused went to house of S to take away forcibly the daughter of S - Scuffle between them -Appellant fired gun shot PW-3 suffered gun shot injures - Trial Court convicted appellant under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for 5 years, which is assailed in appeal on the grounds that E.Ws have not supported prosecution and case does not travel beyond offence under Section 324 I.P.C." 15. Lastly he placed reliance upon a judgment of Mikhi Ram v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 382/1983, decide on 30.6.1999, reported in 1992(2) RCC 1127 wherein in head-note this Court has held as under: "Penal Code, 1860 - Section 307 and Arms Act - Section 27 r/ w Section 374 Cr.P.C. - Appeal against conviction - Simple gun shot injuries caused - Not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature - Offence does not travel beyond the offence under Section 324 I.P.C." 16. Per contra Mr. B.N. Sandhu, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused appellants. Thus, the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court is just and proper and no interference is required to be called for in the impugned judgment.17. Per contra Mr. B.N. Sandhu, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused appellants. Thus, the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court is just and proper and no interference is required to be called for in the impugned judgment.17. I have heard learned counsel for the accused appellant as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State and carefully gone through the entire material made available to me including the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the accused appellant.18. Taking into consideration entire facts and circumstances of the case, as also submission of the learned counsel for the accused appellants, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the accused appellant is released on undergone period.19. In view of above, the appeal is disposed of. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 23.6.2006 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Chomu in Sessions Case No. 6/2005, is modified to the extent that the accused appellant shall be released only for the period already undergone by him, in confinement. The accused appellant shall be released forth-with, if not required in any other case.The impugned judgment of the trial Judge shall stand modified as indicated above. Appeal disposed of. *******