JUDGMENT D.K. Sinha, J.-The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18/ 19.7.2002 recorded by Shri Alok Kumar Dubey, Additional Sessions Judge, FTC., Gumla in Sessions Trial No. 345 of 1995, arising out of Palkot P.S. Case No. 49 of 1994, corresponding to G.R. No. 478 of 1994. 2. The appellant No. 1 Balbhadar Sahu @ Bhadar was convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. He was further convicted under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with the observation that both the sentences would run concurrently. The other appellants viz. Basant Sahu, Abhimanyu Sahu @ Munu Sahu, Balmiki Sahu, Anil Sahu and Jogi Kharia @ Xavier Dungdung were convicted under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years. They were further convicted under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code with the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years recorded against each of them. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution story in short, as it stands narrated by the complainant/informant Ledwa Singh in Complaint Case No. 91 of 1994 presented before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla, was that on 18.7.1994 at about 11 O'clock, all the appellants including the co-accused Shivchand Pandit and Hari Munda came to Village-Bhusritoli variously armed with gun, pistol and challenged the witnesses and the complainant by commanding them to come out from their houses by extending threat that they would be shot dead. In the same sequence it was alleged that the appellant Balbhadar Sahu @ Bhadar started firing from the licensee gun of one Abhimanyu Sahu @ Munu Sahu, consequently the villagers left the village being scared of such firing and hide themselves in the orchard of Fagu Singh. It was alleged that the accused persons had been searching for Somra Singh and Kuyu Singh. However, the accused persons could see some witnesses hiding themselves in the orchard' of Fagu Singh and consequently, it was alleged that the appellant Balbhadar Sahu @ Bhadar fired shot from the gun which caused injury in the right hand, back portion and right leg of the complainant/informant. The allegation was also of firing from the country made pistol but without injury to anyone. The allegation was also of firing from the country made pistol but without injury to anyone. Disclosing the genesis of the occurrence, the complainant narrated that a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated between Somra Singh and Others vs. Basant Sahu and others. Against such proceeding an appeal was preferred in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge. The occurrence was reported at the Police Station but since no action could be taken against the accused, the complainant filed the complaint before the Court in writing by putting, his thumb impression at the bottom of the complaint petition. The complaint petition was referred to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the C.J.M. to which Palkot P.S. Case No. 49 of 1994 was registered on 21.7.1994 for the alleged offence under Sections 147/148/323/324/307/452 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The Investigating Officer after investigation submitted charge-sheet against all the eight accused persons for the alleged offence under Sections 147/148/323/324/307/452 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 27 of the Arms Act. It would be relevant to mention that in course of trial the case of the co-accused Shivchand Pandit was split up by declaring him absconder whereas the accused Hari Munda died. 4. Charges against all the appellants were framed under Sections 148/324/3071 452/34 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 27(2) of the Arms Act and they were put on trial. 5. The prosecution produced altogether 11 witnesses. Besides, the prosecution proved the F.I.R. Ext.-1, complaint Ext.-2, injury report of the informant Ext.3, Paragraph Nos. 1 to 15 of the case diary Ext.-4, page.15 to page 21 of the C.D. Ext.-4/1 and page 22 to page 27 of the case diary Ext.-4/2. P.W. 1 Kunjal Singh testified that the occurrence took place some 5 years ago, it was Monday at about 12 O'clock in the day hours when Basant, Balmhadra, Abhimanyu, Jogi Khariya, Hari Munda, Anil and others came to his house and started firing shots. On the shots fired by Balbhadar Sahu @ Bhadar, these witnesses came out from the house and escaped towards the forest, however, Ledhwa Singh sustained injuries in such firing. The genesis of the occurrence was the land dispute to which the cases were lodged. On the shots fired by Balbhadar Sahu @ Bhadar, these witnesses came out from the house and escaped towards the forest, however, Ledhwa Singh sustained injuries in such firing. The genesis of the occurrence was the land dispute to which the cases were lodged. The witnesses admitted that the father of the appellants was Hari Shankar Sahu and that Kuyu Singh was his grandfather whereas Fagu was his uncle. He admitted that Fagu and Jethu had sold their land to Hari Shankar Sahu some 50 years ago but the witnesses wanted to cultivate the land forcibly which was the cause of discontentment. P.W. 2 Sahebu Singh supported the statement of P.W. 1 and testified that he came out from his house after shots were fired by Madan Sao, Abhimanyu, Balmiki and Basant Sao. They had been searching for Somra Singh and Kunjal Singh and amongst other accused were Jogi Kharia, Shivchand Pandey and Hari Munda armed with pistols. The witness claimed having identified Balbhadar Sahu @ Bhadar holding a gun whereas other assailants were armed with bows and arrows. Ledhwa Singh had sustained injuries on his arm and thigh caused by the shots fired from the gun. The witness admitted that Ledhwa Singh was his uncle, descendant from the common stock and partition was effected amongst them. The father of Ledhwa Singh was alive and that Ledhwa Singh used to live with his father there. He heard 10/12 he is being fired from the gun. He came to learn from Ledhwa that he sustained in juries from the shots of the gun. The witnes'3 admitted that the case was instituted after 2/3 days of the occurrence after due consultation and that his statement was not recorded by the police. P.W. 3 Sukra Singh was tendered. P.W. 4 Shree Singh supported the time and date of occurrence and testified that he was there in his house at the relevant time. However, he came out and saw the accused Bhadra Sahu, Munu Sahu, Balmiki Sahu, Basant Sahu, Shiv Charan Pandey, Anil Sahu, Jogiya Khariya and Hari Munda on the alarm there being raised. The witness described that Balmiki Sahu was holding pistol in his hand, Basant Sao was holding Lathi, Yogi Kharia was armed with "Balua" Shiv Charan Pandey was holding "Lathi" Bhadar was armed with gun as also Munnu with gun, Anil with stick and Hari Munda was carrying bamboo. The witness described that Balmiki Sahu was holding pistol in his hand, Basant Sao was holding Lathi, Yogi Kharia was armed with "Balua" Shiv Charan Pandey was holding "Lathi" Bhadar was armed with gun as also Munnu with gun, Anil with stick and Hari Munda was carrying bamboo. When he did not come out from his house on command, Balbhadar Sahu @ Bhadar fired shot from his gun which caused injury in his right hand and he fell down. Though he raised alarm but none of the villagers approached him and expressed his ignorance as to the cause of such occurrence. He admitted that he was having no dispute with Balbhadar Sahu @ Bhadar and that he was living separate to him for the last 6/7 years. He admitted that at the time of occurrence Ledhwa Singh was standing there with him but he was not raising alarm. The witness further testified having witnessed Balbhadra @ Bhadar while the latter was coming towards the house of Somra Ganghu situated on the West of his house. 6. P.W. 5 Somra Singh corroborated the occurrence in his testimony and narrated that he heard "Halla" that Balbhadar Sahu @ Bhadar. Hulkoo. Balmiki and Basant were hurling bombs and firing shots from gun and that Anil Sahu, Shiv Charan, Yogi Kharia and Hari Mohan were also with them. On alarm, he came out and hide himself in the forest and claimed having seen from the forest. Ledhwa Singh sustained gun shot injuries on his arm and thigh. Disclosing the genesis he narrated that there was land dispute and he had enmity with Bhadar and Basant prevailing since the period of their father and that his land was forcibly encroached by the assailants and on account of such enmity this case was instituted against them. He got opportunity to see Ledhwa Singh whose house was situated by the side of his house and that the case was instituted after consultations. 7. P.W. 6 Ledhwa Singh was the injured witness and informant of the instant case. He testified that the occurrence took place some six years ago, it was Monday at about 11 O' clock in the day hours. He was there in his garden when Bhadar Balmiki. Basant, Abhimanyu, Anil Jaggi, Hari, Shiv Charan came there who cautioned and commanded S9mra Singh and Kunjal to come out lest they would be shot dead. He testified that the occurrence took place some six years ago, it was Monday at about 11 O' clock in the day hours. He was there in his garden when Bhadar Balmiki. Basant, Abhimanyu, Anil Jaggi, Hari, Shiv Charan came there who cautioned and commanded S9mra Singh and Kunjal to come out lest they would be shot dead. The accused were carrying pistol, bomb, sticks, arrows, bows. He heard firing of shots but hide himself in the "Bari" (garden). Shot was fired by Bhadar Sahu which caused injury on his back, arm and head. Consequently, he fell down and became unconscious. He sustained injury in his leg also and regained senses on the subsequent day and then went to the Police Station where he delivered his statement and from there he went to Hospital where he was treated. When no action could be taken at the Police Station, he came to the Court and with the consultation of his Counsel filed a complaint in the Court. He identified Balbhadar Sahu @ Bhadar in the dock. He admitted that the complaint case was filed in the Court after two days of the occurrence and he was accompanied by five persons to the Court on the date of its institution. No written report was presented at the Police Station. He visited police station after four days of filing of the complaint. He identified Bhadar Sahu (Balbhadra Sahu) in the Court. The accused Shiv Charan was outsider and this fact was apprised by Somra on the date of the filing of the complaint in the Court. The complaint was filed after consultation with all the witnesses. Anil Sahu belonged to Village-Kodega and further admitted that the accused persons did not belong to Bhusritoli. The accused Basant and Balmiki belonged to Teletoli and that the assailants had come from the Eastern side to whom he identified while he was irrigating the vegetables in the garden and that the assailants were on the road. He could not meet Fagu Singh father of Somra on the date of occurrence rather he met Somra and Kuyu Singh prior to the occurrence and beyond that after about 2/3 hours. At the relevant time this witness was there in the garden of Fagu Singh and his father also came there. The witness admitted that the contents of the complaint petition was known to Somra Singh. At the relevant time this witness was there in the garden of Fagu Singh and his father also came there. The witness admitted that the contents of the complaint petition was known to Somra Singh. He admitted having stated before the police that while 'he was working with his father in the garden, the accused Bhadar fired shot and that the accused were armed with bomb, pistol, stick and arrows and that he had no interaction with 'the assailants at the time of occurrence. He did not raise alarm. The witness further admitted that he went to hospital for treatment sitting as a pillion on a cycle where he stayed for about 2/3 hours. It was Taman Singh, who was riding the cycle. He narrated that Bhadar Sao was armed with gun, Abhimanyu was holding a pistol, Basant and Balmukund were carrying sticks but expressed ignorance as to who was carrying bomb. However, he learnt from explosion that it was caused by bomb. The cause of dispute with Bhadar Saho was known to his father. He did not sustain injury in his thigh and that the case was instituted at the instance of Somra but denied that the case was instituted falsely. 8. P.W. 7 Rajeshwar Pathak, proved the formal F.I.R. in the pen and signature of Shri Krishan Singh, the then Officer-in-charge of Palkot Police Station, marked Ext.-A. He further proved the complaint petition duly typed by Sukra Oraon, typist on the basis of draft prepared by Birsu Singh, Advocate. He proved the signature of Birsu Singh on the Complaint Petition, marked Ext.-2. Witness admitted that these documents were prepared in his presence. 9. P.W. 8 Jainul Abidi was also a formal witness. He proved the injury report of Ledhwa Singh in the pen and signature of Dr. Shambhu Prasad Singh of Palkot, marked Ext.-3. He admitted that the said report was not prepared in his presence and that the said Doctor was still posted there. 10. P.W. 9 Kiru Singh supported the year, date and time of the occurrence and narrated that he heard "Halla" that Somra was being assaulted. He identified Balbhadar Sahu @ Bhadar, Balmiki, Basant, Abhimanyu there. Further testified that Bhadar Sahu was holding a gun in his hand whereas Abhimanyu, Balmiki. Basant were carrying pistols. He heard also the explosion of bomb whereupon all the villagers started fleeing. He identified Balbhadar Sahu @ Bhadar, Balmiki, Basant, Abhimanyu there. Further testified that Bhadar Sahu was holding a gun in his hand whereas Abhimanyu, Balmiki. Basant were carrying pistols. He heard also the explosion of bomb whereupon all the villagers started fleeing. Ledhwa Singh sustained shot injuries which was fired by Bhadar Sao. The witness identified the accused in the dock and further admitted that he met Ledhwa in the evening on his call. Ledhwa apprised him that he sustained gun shot injuries but this witness admitted that the occurrence did not take place in his presence but it was narrated to him by Shree. He expressed his ignorance about the nature of land dispute between Hari Shankar Sao and Ledhwa but the occurrence took place for securing possession over the disputed land. 11. P.W. 10 Dr. Shambhu Prasad Singh had examined Ledhwa Singh on 21.7.1994 and found the following: (i) A black burnt rounded injury on posterior surface of right forearm upper 1/3 measuring 1/2 c.m. diameter skin deep. (ii) A black burnt rounded injury on posterior surface of right forearm 11/2 below the first injury measuring 1/2 c.m. diameter x skin deep. (iii) An oval black burnt injurj on right scapular region measuring 1/2 c.m. x 3/4 c.m. x skin deep. (iv) A black burnt round injury on posterior surface of right thigh lower 1/3 x Y2 c.m. diameter x skin deep. Injuries were caused by explosive substance, simple in nature within 72 hours of the examination. He proved the injury report which was already marked Ext.-3. He admitted having not mentioned the father's name of the injured. He further admitted that the injured was produced by the police and that the injuries on the victim were possible by crackers. 12. P .W. 11 Manoj Bhagat proved different pages of the case diary, as mentioned in his statement which were marked Ext. 4, 4/1 and 4/2. He admitted that the case diary was not written in his presence. 13. The prosecution evidence was found to be closed after examination of the witnesses and the appellants were examined. Their statements were recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure by which each of them was confronted with the incriminating materials produced on the record by the prosecution to which they denied their guilt by expressing desire to adduce defence witness. The prosecution evidence was found to be closed after examination of the witnesses and the appellants were examined. Their statements were recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure by which each of them was confronted with the incriminating materials produced on the record by the prosecution to which they denied their guilt by expressing desire to adduce defence witness. I find from the record that the sale witness that was produced on behalf of the defence was D.W. 1 Bishwajeot Oraon, an Assistant in the District Sub-Registrar Office, Gumla, who deposed that he carried the Book No.1, Volume No. 5/1945 Page Nos. 53 to 62 containing the contents of Deed No. 343/45 in the Court under the instruction of Shri Ram shwar Lal, Sub-Registrar. The vendors of the sale deed was Fagu Singh, Jethu Singh, son of Kinnu Singh whereas it was scribed that the vendees were Sheodeo Sahu, Parasnath Sahu, Gaurishankar Sahu, Hari Shankar Sahu and Dukkhu Sahu, all sons of Haldar Sahu. The witness further testified that the contents of the register was copied from the original deed drawn in the pen of David Gudia and he identified the signature and writing of David Gudia. He proved the certified copy of the deed which was marked Ext. A. The witness admitted that the contenis made in the register was neither copied in his presence from the original deed nor the same was compared in his presence. The Registrar did not put his signature on the said deed in his presence and that he had no personal knowledge about the original deed, Upon being questioned by the Court, the witness admitted that he had no occasion to see or to work either with David Gudia or Fan well Tigga. He further expressed his ignorance as to whether they were alive or dead and testified that he had no personal knowledge about the contents and description of the land mentioned in the said deed and that the certified copy was not prepared by him. 14. Learned Counsel at the outset submitted that the Trial Judge did not convict the appellants under Section 27 of the Arms Act for want of statutory sanction of the competent authority. 14. Learned Counsel at the outset submitted that the Trial Judge did not convict the appellants under Section 27 of the Arms Act for want of statutory sanction of the competent authority. The prosecution witnesses were consistent that enmity was prevailing between the parties on account of persistent land dispute and P.W. 9 Kiru Singh was specific in his cross-examination that the occurrence took place for securing possession over the disputed land. The specific case of the informant and other prosecution witnesses was that the injured Ledhwa Singh had sustained gun shot injuries on different parts of his body purported to be caused by shots fired by Balbhadar Sahu @ Bhadar, the appellant who was convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. But in the medical evidence P.W. 10 Dr. Shambhu Prasad Singh did not find a single injury on the person of Ledhwa Singh appeared to be caused by firing shots much less the pellets. All the injuries were of very small dimensions and in the opinion of the Doctor it were caused by explosive substance, simple in nature, may be by the splinters of the crackers and in that manner the prosecution miserably failed to prove and establish that the injuries alleged to be sustained by the informant Ledhwa Singh was caused by firearm alleged to be fired by Balbhadar Sahu @ Bhadar. The prosecution witnesses were consistent that the appellants were armed with pistols, gun, bamboos, bows and arrows but none of the witnesses sustained injury by any of such weapons including by the' explosion of bomb and the injury sustained by Ledhwa Singh, which was of very small dimension, according to the Doctor was possible by the use of crackers and by bomb. The witnesses were consistent about the previous enmity on account of land dispute for securing the possession over the disputed land, which was the sole cause of enmity, as such, false implication of the appellants could not be ruled out and the learned Sessions Judge failed to take into consideration that there was no positive evidence against the appellants except the evidence of partisan witnesses and the credibility of their testimony could be discredited for want of consistency in their narration and participation of the individual appellant in the alleged occurrence. According to the prosecution witnesses bombs were hurled and shots were fired from the gun and pistols by the appellants but there was no objective finding of the I.O. on the record and in that manner the place of occurrence could not be established. The important point for consideration in the instant case is the admitted case of enmity on account of persistent land dispute. According to the informant he sustained injuries on different parts of his body caused by shots alleged to be fired by Balbhadar Sahu @ Bhadar but such allegation has been negatived in the medical evidence. The third point which the Trial Court failed to consider was the statement of the informant Ledhwa Singh who testified in unequivocal terms that the complaint was lodged before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate at the instance of P.W. 5 Somra Singh. The occurrence as alleged took place on 18.7.1994 but the complaint was lodged on 20.7.1994 without explaining the inordinate delay. The appellants Balbhadar Sahu @ Bhadar, Basant Sahu, Abhimanyu Sahu @ Munu Sahu and Balmiki Sahu were the full brothers and they were falsely implicated by the complainant-informant maliciously on account of old enmity which was the admitted case. The charge was framed against the appellants under Section 27 of the Arms Act but none of the appellants was convicted under the said charge. As a matter of fact, the occurrence did not take place in the manner presented by the prosecution as such, they may be acquitted by setting aside the judgment of their conviction and order of sentence. 15. Per contra Mrs. Lily Sahay, A.P.P. opposed the contention and submitted that there were direct allegation against the appellants about the active participation in the offence of rioting variously armed with deadly weapon like gun, pistols, bombs, bows and arrows and sticks and it was the specific allegation against the appellant Balbhadar Sahu @ Bhadar that he fired shots causing injuries on the person of the informant Ledhwa Singh. The minor discrepancy in the statement of the witnesses produced on behalf of the prosecution may be ignored due to lapse of time. The land dispute was admitted and equally the enmity prevailing between the parties was also admitted but at the same time the settled principle of law that enmity cuts both ways cannot be ignored. The minor discrepancy in the statement of the witnesses produced on behalf of the prosecution may be ignored due to lapse of time. The land dispute was admitted and equally the enmity prevailing between the parties was also admitted but at the same time the settled principle of law that enmity cuts both ways cannot be ignored. The appellants, in view of such enmity, attempted to eliminate the informant Ledhwa Singh but fortunately he could survive and when his case could not be eliminate at the police station he lodged complaint before the Court and charge sheet was submitted after investigation of the case by the I.O. The defence failed to convince the Court that the appellants were prejudiced for non-examination of the I.O. The material facts related to the occurrence have been brought on the record in the statement of the witnesses which includes the place of occurrence, as such, the prosecution case was well proved and the judgment of the Trial Court did not deserve to be interfered with. 16. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, argument advanced on behalf of the appellants as well as the State Respondent and upon careful perusal of the judgment impugned, I find that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Gumla committed gross error of record by giving wrong observation of the facts beyond the record that "almost all of them states that Balbhadar Sahu @ Bhadar fired with gun on Ledhwa Singh (P.W. 6) who sustained pellet injuries on his person who was later on examined by Dr. Shambhu Prasad Singh (P.W. 10), who found gun shot injuries on right forearm, right scapular region and on the right thigh on the person of Ledhwa Singh (P.W. 6). Though the injuries were simple in nature but were caused by firearm. Had it been hit on some vital part of the body of ledhwa Singh he would have been killed by the injuries" whereas P.W. 10 Dr. Shambhu Prasad Singh who had examined the injuries of ledhwa was of the opinion that it were caused by splinters of bomb or may be by crackers and certainly not by gun fire. There appears substance in the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the objective finding of the I.O. could not be brought on the record and for that the defence of the appellants was highly prejudiced. There appears substance in the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the objective finding of the I.O. could not be brought on the record and for that the defence of the appellants was highly prejudiced. It is settled law that in the specific case where there was allegation of firing shots by guns and pistols and hurling of bombs causing explosion, the prosecution is saddled with heavy burden to establish the place of occurrence and in this connection the objective finding of the 1.0. could be the relevant fact as to whether he could be able to collect the evidence of such firing or the splinters of 'bomb or any other sign of explosion of bombs. The witnesses were consistent including the informant ledhwa Singh that the complaint was lodged after two days of the alleged occurrence after due deliberation and consultation with the other witnesses and at the instance of P.W. 5 Somra Singh, who were of course partisan in nature and in that manner the prosecution failed to establish beyond the reasonable doubt that ledhwa Singh was actually the author of the complaint giving rise to institution of police case. But in view of the glaring inconsistency in the evidence of the material witnesses with that of the medical evidence Ext. 3 and the complainant informant fairly admitted that the complaint was filed at the instance of the witness Somra Singh, the contents of which were also not known to the complainant/informant it would not be safe to rely upon that as such it can safely be observed that the occurrence did not take place in the manner presented by the informant and narrated by the witnesses in their evidence. I further observe that the place of occurrence could not be established and the defence of the appellants was prejudiced for non-examination of the Investigating Officer, as such, a reasonable doubt is created as to the. complicity of the appellants in the alleged offence, therefore, the judgment of their conviction in Sessions Trial No. 345 of 1995 arising out of Palkot P.S. Case No. 49 of 1994 cannot be sustained under law. Accordingly, their conviction and sentence recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Gumla is set aside. All the appellants are acquitted. Their bail bonds stand discharged.