JUDGMENT S.K. Seth, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Session Judge, Shajapur in S.T. No. 238/1992, appellants have preferred this appeal. 2. By the impugned judgment, appellants have been found guilty of offences punishable u/s. 307/34 of the Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo 5 years R.I. on each count with fine of Rs. 500/- each with default stipulation. Learned court below also found the appellant No. 1 guilty of offence punishable u/ s. 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo 2 years' R.I. It was directed that sentences to run concurrently. 3. In the night of 29.11.1991 a dacoity took place in Village Anand-khedi. Superintendent of Police Shajapur deployed the Police Force in search of the culprits. Assistant Sub Inspector of Police R.P. Shrivas was leading one such search party. Near Village Malya-khedi, he found two motor cycles going towards Nipania-dera. Noticing another police party coming from the opposite direction, one of the motor-cyclist escaped and the other one was intercept by R.P. Shrivas. To avoid capture, one of the pillion rider who was carrying a 12 Bore Gun, fired a shot at R.P. Shrivas, which fortunately missed the aim. Thereafter, R.P. Shrivas fired from his service revolver a shot causing injury to one person who fell down from the motorcycle. The opposite police party also opened fire, as a result, one more person sustained injuries and fell down from the motorcycle. 4. The police party found looted articles in the possession of injured. They were arrested and taken to Hospital for treatment. This incident was reported by Assistant Sub Inspector, R.P. Shrivas vide Dehati Nalisi on the basis whereof,, the FIR was registered, which set the investigation rolling. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against appellants and one more person (Rambabu) who was absconding. Rambabu was put to trial subsequently and has been acquitted. We are not concerned with his acquittal in this appeal; therefore, we need not dilate upon it. 5. Considering prosecution evidence, trial Court found appellants guilty of the offences and sentenced them. 6. We have heard rival submissions at length. Perused the record. It is contended that prosecution evidence does not inspire confidence to hold the appellants guilty. We are not concerned with his acquittal in this appeal; therefore, we need not dilate upon it. 5. Considering prosecution evidence, trial Court found appellants guilty of the offences and sentenced them. 6. We have heard rival submissions at length. Perused the record. It is contended that prosecution evidence does not inspire confidence to hold the appellants guilty. It is submitted that there was discrepancy in the evidence of material witnesses which cast a serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case. 7. After the careful scrutiny of record, we do not find any force in the submission. The evidence of R.P. Shrivas (PW-10) is very clear, which is in the line with the story set out in the FIR. Similar is the evidence of Chatersingh (PW-4), Jadansingh (PW-9), Akhtar Ali (PW-1). Their presence at the scene of crime can not be doubted. Recovery of 12 Bore Gun coupled with empty cartridges at spot is clinching. In our considered opinion, it is sufficient to establish that appellants were guilty of offences as found by the trial Court. We do not find anything in the evidence of these material witnesses to impeach their credit. 8. As a result, we find no merit and substance in this appeal. The appeal therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled. Appellants are directed to surrender before the trial Court forthwith. They be taken back to custody for serving out remaining part of sentence.