JUDGEMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The Appellant No. 1 has been convicted under Section 307/324 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years, one year and another one year under each count whereas the rest of the Appellants have been convicted under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and one year respectively by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah, in Sessions Trial No. 142 of 1986 by a judgment dated 24.1.1996. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 3.3.1985 the accused persons variously armed came to the house of the InformantShanti Devi (PW-4) and altercated with her over a simple matter which led to a firing by them which hit her on the left leg. 3. The defence of the Appellant was that for the same occurrence, one Jagdishpur P.S. Case No. 31 of 1985 has been instituted by one Rameshwar Paswan according to which one Faujdar Mahto had fired at Rameshwar Paswan which had hit the Informant when she had wanted to save Rameshwar Paswan. This case has been brought by the defence as Exhibit-A. 4. During Trial, the prosecution examined seven witnesses out of whom PW-1 Muni Lal @ Lal Muni Ram has stated that he was at the Darwaja of Faujdar Mahto when he saw the Appellants there and also that she was fired at by accused injuring her on the leg. PW-2 is another witness who also allegedly witnessed the occurrence. PW-3 is one Birja Ram who stated that he saw the occurrence while he was cutting fodder and saw the accused persons running away with fire arms. PW-4 is Shanti Devi, the Informant who stated that the accused persons came to her Darwaja and altercated with her and thereafter, one Kapildeo Singh fired at her which hit on the leg on account of which she fell down. The occurrence is said to have taken place on account of a very minor incident. PW-5 is the husband of the Informant who supported the facts that the Appellants have come to his door and after an altercation they fired at his wife on account of which she was injured. PW-6 is the father-in-law of the Informant and he also gave an eye witness account of the occurrence. PW-5 is the husband of the Informant who supported the facts that the Appellants have come to his door and after an altercation they fired at his wife on account of which she was injured. PW-6 is the father-in-law of the Informant and he also gave an eye witness account of the occurrence. However, in his cross-examination, he stated that PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 came after the occurrence had taken place and, therefore falsified their presence at the place of occurrence. It has been argued that in the absence of the evidence of the Doctor, there is no corroboration about the injury sustained by the Informant and it was unsafe to convict the Appellants only on the ocular evidence of the witnesses. Moreover, the further argument is that the Officer-In-charge has not been examined and, therefore, in the background of a counter version of the occurrence, he alone could have given independent assurance to the prosecution case. 5. Considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellans, I am inclined to agree with the said submissions. Therefore, the Appellants are acquitted of the charge under Section 307 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, since there is oral and consistent evidence that the Appellants were armed, I am not inclined to interfere with their conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act. However, the period of sentence already undergone by them during trial would be sufficient in the interest of justice. 6. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid modification in conviction and sentence.