JUDGMENT Sheema Ali Khan, J. – This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and the sentence dated 22nd June, 2000 passed by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in Sessions Trial No. 55 of 1999/229 of 1995 whereby, the appellant has been found guilty for the offences under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. 2. The prosecution case has been instituted on the basis of the statement of Ram Chander Singh on 27.07.1992. The prosecution case is that the sons of the informant were transplanting paddy in the fields when Kamta Singh and Devendra Singh came to the place of occurrence and began to argue with Anil Singh. After some time, Kamta Singh ordered and the appellant fired on Anil Singh, which hit his right leg. It is said that Parshuram Singh and Munna Singh were present at the place of occurrence. Parshuram Singh inflicted a lathi blow on the hand of Devendra Singh, as a result of which, the pistol fell down which was seized by Parshuram Singh and produced in the Police Station. The accused persons are said to have run away from the place of occurrence after the said firing. 3. Unfortunately, in this case, the Investigating Officer and the doctor have not been examined to prove the place of occurrence and the medical report. Four witnesses have been examined in this case, out of which PW 1 Parshuram Singh and PW 2 Munna Singh are the witnesses named in the First Information Report, PW 3 Anil Singh is the injured, whereas PW 4 Ram Chander Singh is the informant of this case. 4. PW 1 Parshuram Singh has supported the prosecution case as made out in the First Information Report. He admits that he is the cousin of the injured. According to this witness, the injured was sent for examination to one Dr. Saroj, however, he got himself treated by another doctor. Learned Counsel for the appellant points out that there is contradiction in the deposition of PW 1 when he states at paragraph 14 that he had gone to the fields to relieve himself in the evening around 5 to 5:30 PM. At paragraph 16, he states that he had heard the sound of raised voices when he was at home, which is about 2-minutes away from the place of occurrence. At paragraph 16, he states that he had heard the sound of raised voices when he was at home, which is about 2-minutes away from the place of occurrence. According to this witness, Sunil Singh and Munna were present at the place of occurrence. A suggestion has been given to this witness that the case has been instituted at the instance of one Banke Bihar, who is the brother-in-law (sala) of Suryadeo Singh, the brother of the informant. It has been suggested that Suryadeo Singh is a very influential man and the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station is very friendly with him. 5. PW 2 Munna Singh, who according to the First Information Report, was present at the place of occurrence, denies that he was present at the time of occurrence in his examination-in-chief. He denies that he was examined by the Investigating Officer. He also denies the seizure of the weapon produced before the Investigating Officer was made in his presence, rather he states that when he reached the Police Station, he found Banke Bihari sitting with the Investigating Officer and he was asked to sign on a plain paper. This witness has not been declared hostile despite the fact that he has not supported the prosecution version. 6. PW 3 Anil Singh is the injured. He claims that he was examined by Dr. Ganesh Singh. According to him, he was not treated by the Government doctors, rather he was treated in a private clinic. 7. PW 4 Ram Chander Singh is the informant of this case. It is submitted that he is not an eye-witness, as his presence has not been acknowledge by PWs 1, 2 and 3. However, I find that no such question has been put to PWs 1 and 2. It is only PW 3 who has stated that Sunil Singh and Munna were present at the place of occurrence when it started. This witness has stated that he had reached the place of occurrence after he heard the sound of raised voices and was able to witness the occurrence. 8. The main issue in this case is whether the prosecution has been able to prove the case as made out by them in the First Information Report. This witness has stated that he had reached the place of occurrence after he heard the sound of raised voices and was able to witness the occurrence. 8. The main issue in this case is whether the prosecution has been able to prove the case as made out by them in the First Information Report. The Investigating Officer who could have establish the place of occurrence, and could have given an explanation regarding the statements made before him under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has not been examined. This would be, particularly, relevant with respect to the evidence of PW 2. PW 2 denies his presence at the place of occurrence. Attention of this witness has been drawn to his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he has supposedly supported the prosecution version of the occurrence. In fact, PW 2 goes so far as to say, that he was not aware of the seizure of the pistol, which was produced by PW 1 before the Investigating Officer. The Trial Court could have taken help of sub-section (2) of Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to ascertain the facts aforesaid. 9. Another aspect of this case is that the medical evidence is missing. There is no material to support the allegation that PW 3 had received injuries during the said occurrence. The evidence of PW 3 on this point is also contrary to what has been stated by the other witnesses. According to PW 3, he got himself examined by one Dr. Ganesh Singh. The evidence reveals that this Dr. Ganesh Singh was a private doctor. This fact could have been verified from the case diary by the Trial Court to ascertain whether the doctor was working at the Government Hospital or was a private doctor. It would appear from the evidence of PW 1, that only Sunil Singh and Munna (PW 2) were present at the time of occurrence. It has been pointed out that Sunil Singh is the brother of the injured (PW 3), has been kept away from the Court. Therefore, there appears to be several contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses. PW 1 has contradicted himself by giving two different versions, at paragraphs 14 and 16, regarding his presence at the place of occurrence and as such, his evidence does not inspire confidence. Therefore, there appears to be several contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses. PW 1 has contradicted himself by giving two different versions, at paragraphs 14 and 16, regarding his presence at the place of occurrence and as such, his evidence does not inspire confidence. PW 2 denies his presence at the time of occurrence, and therefore, basically there is only one witness i.e. PW 3, the injured. In the absence of the medical report and the fact that the formal First Information Report and contents thereof have not been proved, this Court finds that this is difficult to accept the evidence of the sole witness, PW 3 in this case. 10. Considering the facts aforesaid, the order of conviction dated 22nd June, 2000 passed in Sessions Trial No. 55 of 1999/229 of 1995 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. He is also discharged from the liabilities of the bail bonds furnished earlier in this case. 11. In the result, this appeal is allowed.