JUDGMENT Sheema Ali Khan, J. – The appellant no. 1 Metho Yadav and the appellant no. 4 Lallan Yadav have been found guilty us 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and 2 years respectively. Appellant Nos. 3 and 4, namely, Kamleshwari Yadav and Murari Yadav have been found guilty under Section 307/34 and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years. 2. The fardbayan has been instituted by Rajniti Yadav on 22.07.1992 at about 4 AM at the Sadar Hospital, Begusarai. The informant states that he was sleeping outside his house along with father Balo Yadav and his brother Setho Yadav. Balo Yadav woke up and took his son Setho Yadav to attend the call of the nature. In the mean time, it is said that Balo Yadav was surrounded by the appellants. Metho Yadav is said to have fired from his revolver, whereas Murari Yadav also fired using a revolver, which pierced the arm of his father Balo Yadav. On the sound of firing, Mridul Yadav, Brahmdeo Yadav and Fauzdar Yadav came to the place of occurrence and saw the occurrence taking place. The motive of the occurrence is that a month prior to the date of the occurrence, the appellants had taken away a horse belonging to the informant, for which they had filed a case at the Police Station. 3. The defence of the appellants is that they have been falsely implicated in this case. There is no case filed by the informant with respect to the theft of a horse and that because there was enmity between the parties, they have been involved in this occurrence. 4. Altogether, eight witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. PW 7 is Dr. S. M. Bakar who has examined the injured Balo Yadav. PW 8 Ram Bahadur Prasad Yadav is the Investigating Officer of this case, whereas other witnesses claim to be the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. The evidence of PW 7, the doctor, indicates that there were two injuries on Balo Yadav, one in the stomach and the other in the forearm. Therefore, it appears that the firearm injuries have been supported by the doctor. 5. The evidence of PW 7, the doctor, indicates that there were two injuries on Balo Yadav, one in the stomach and the other in the forearm. Therefore, it appears that the firearm injuries have been supported by the doctor. 5. PW 1 Brahmdeo Yadav came to the place of occurrence after he heard the sound of firing and claimed that he is the eye-witness to the occurrence. However, from the evidence, it would appear that he had not seen the occurrence. It has been stated by him in the cross-examination that he only came to the place of occurrence after he heard the sound of firing. This witness stated that he first took Balo Yadav to the Police Station and thereafter he took him to the hospital. Apparently, this witness is not speaking the truth as he states that the injured Balo Yadav was taken to the Police Station as there is no entry in the Station Diary of the Police Station indicating that Balo Yadav or his son, the informant, had gone to the Police Station. 6. PW 2 Mridul Yadav is the son of Balo Yadav, PW 6. He too came to the place of occurrence after he heard the sound of firing. According to him, he heard his father screaming and after that he ran to help his father. He claims to have identified the appellants in the light emitted by the lantern, burning on the verandah. Apart from which, he has stated that it was not a dark night. This witness is obviously not an eye-witness to the occurrence as per his own evidence. Surprisingly, both PWs 1 and 2 did not state that Balo Yadav disclosed the name of the accused persons to them, rather they claim that they saw the occurrence and were thus able to identify the appellants. 7. PW 3 Rajniti Yadav is the informant of this case. He supports his case as made out in the First Information Report in his examination-in-chief. He is the person who has lodged the fardbayan for which he has given an explanation that his father was unconscious after receiving the injuries, and as such, he could not lodged the First Information Report. He further states that his father had to be operated in the stomach and therefore, it was impossible for him to give his fardbayan. He is the person who has lodged the fardbayan for which he has given an explanation that his father was unconscious after receiving the injuries, and as such, he could not lodged the First Information Report. He further states that his father had to be operated in the stomach and therefore, it was impossible for him to give his fardbayan. In the First Information Report, PW 3 Rajniti Yadav has not stated a word regarding injury no. 1, which was on the stomach. It is only before the Trial Court he has given a description of injury no. 1. His evidence would lead this Court to believe that he only woke up after he heard the sound of firing and, therefore, it is natural that he could not have given a description of the injury no. 1. An argument has been raised that this witness did not see the occurrence as if he had seen the occurrence and he would have be in a position to give a description of the occurrence, he could have given details regarding the injuries etc. I would not attach much emphasis to this aspect of the matter as describing the injuries cannot be of much importance in view of the fact that there is no doubt regarding the fact that two shots were fired, which injured Balo Yadav. 8. PW 4 Prayag Yadav is the father of Balo Yadav, the injured. He cannot be treated to be an eye-witness to the occurrence. It is nobody’s case that this witness was sleeping outside the house when the occurrence took place and as such, he only came to the place of occurrence when he heard the sound of firing. He admits in his evidence that he did not see the person who had fired on his son. 9. Regarding PWs 1, 2 and 4, the Trial Court has also come to a finding that they are not eye-witnesses to the occurrence. 10. PW 5 Setho Yadav is a child witness who was present at the time when the occurrence took place. According to his evidence, he began to cry when he saw the accused firing on his father. Referring to the evidence of this child witness, Counsel for the appellants submits that the tenor of his evidence appears that he is a tutored witness. According to his evidence, he began to cry when he saw the accused firing on his father. Referring to the evidence of this child witness, Counsel for the appellants submits that the tenor of his evidence appears that he is a tutored witness. At the time when the occurrence took place, he was only six years old and has given his evidence when he was 9 years old. He has stated that when his father began to shout, then other persons rushed to the place of occurrence. This Court intends to agree with the submission of the Counsel for the appellants that the Trial Court ought not to rely on the statement of a child witness when he gives details regarding the occurrence. However, there can be no doubt about the fact that he saw the occurrence taking place and that he saw that his father was injured because of the firing. This Court only doubts the statement when he identified the accused persons as it is not possible for a child of 6-years to know the accused persons and identify them by their names unless there was a special relationship between such witness and the accused persons. Therefore, the evidence of PW 5 can only be partly believed. 11. PW 6 Balo Yadav is the injured of this case. He has specifically stated that he was surrounded by the appellants and the appellants 1 and 4 fired at him, injuring him at two places. In the cross-examination, it appears that this witness is trying to exaggerate the case in his anxiety to ensure that the appellants are convicted. He has stated that he was taken to the Police Station where he disclosed the names of the appellants which were noted by the Munshi of the Police Station who was present at that time in the Police Station. After which, he was taken to the hospital where he regained consciousness. This witness has also deposed regarding the antecedents of the accused persons. It is said that they were involved in a case of theft for stealing the pumping set of one S. K. Singh. He has also stated that there is a case of loot against these appellants. Attention of this witness has also been drawn to the statement made before the Investigating Officer. It is said that they were involved in a case of theft for stealing the pumping set of one S. K. Singh. He has also stated that there is a case of loot against these appellants. Attention of this witness has also been drawn to the statement made before the Investigating Officer. He has come up with a case during his evidence that one of the accused had ordered, which led to the firing. He admits that he had not disclosed this fact before the Investigating Officer nor established that his sons and PW 1 had come to the place of occurrence and had witnessed the occurrence. Balo Yadav has deposed that when he shouted for help, the others came running and the firing took place after that. This part of the evidence of PW 6 cannot be believed by this Court as even according to the statement made in the First Information Report and the deposition of PWs 1, 2 and 4, it would appear that they only arrived at the place of occurrence after they heard the sound of firing. 12. The evidence of PW 6 has to be compared with the evidence of PW 8, the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer has stated that Balo Yadav had not come to the Police Station to give his evidence regarding the occurrence. It is said that there is no written report to indicate that Balo Yadav had disclosed the names of the appellants in the Police Station. PW 8 at paragraph 11 has also stated that no case has been instituted against the appellants for theft of a horse. He has also stated that the witnesses had stated before him that they came to the place of occurrence after they heard the sound of firing. He also denies that the witnesses have stated that Metho Yadav had given order which led to the firing. Much emphasis has been laid on behalf of the appellants, on paragraph 8 of the deposition of PW 8. At paragraph 8, the Investigating Officer has described the place of occurrence. According to him, he did not find any bed or bedding on the place of occurrence, nor did the informant show him the lantern or the torch by which they allegedly identified the accused persons. At paragraph 8, the Investigating Officer has described the place of occurrence. According to him, he did not find any bed or bedding on the place of occurrence, nor did the informant show him the lantern or the torch by which they allegedly identified the accused persons. He also claims that he did not find any sign of a new born calf at the place of occurrence. He also states that he did not find blood at the place of occurrence. On the basis of the aforesaid deposition, it has been argued that the place of occurrence is not established and that it took place somewhere else and due to previous enmity, these appellants have been made accused. 13. On perusal of the judgment of the Trial Court, this Court finds that the Court below has not taken into account the evidence of the Investigating Officer when he has stated that no case was filed against the appellants by the informant for stealing a mare or that the informant has not been able to prove that the occurrence took place near the “parti” land just outside the house of the informant. The Trial Court has not taken into consideration that no blood was found or that the case of the informant that the cow has given birth to a new calf at the place of occurrence cannot be substantiated while examining the place of occurrence. It is specific case of the informant that the family was sleeping outside the house as their cow was in labor and had given birth to a calf sometime during the night. It is well settled principle that if the informant claims that there was a motive for committing the crime, they must prove this fact or establish by circumstantial evidence that the motive exist. When the motive is falsified by the Investigating Officer by stating in no uncertain terms that there is no case pending against the appellants which is filed by the informant or any of his family members, this Court has to hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove the motive for the occurrence. The Trial Court has also failed to appreciate that the place of occurrence could not be established by the prosecution. It cannot be doubted that injury no. 1 was grievous in nature. The Trial Court has also failed to appreciate that the place of occurrence could not be established by the prosecution. It cannot be doubted that injury no. 1 was grievous in nature. It was on the stomach which needed surgical intervention and as such, the presumption would be that blood would have oozed out not only from the stomach but also from the arm which was also badly wounded. This being the position, the prosecution should have established that (1) there were blood stains at the place of occurrence and (2) that it would have taken place on the parti land just outside the house of the informant. 14. After considering these aspects, this Court comes to the conclusion that it cannot be doubted that Balo Yadav had sustained injuries because of the firing but it cannot be stated with all certainty that the appellants were the persons who were responsible for the injuries. In the circumstances, this Court acquits the above named appellants from the charges levelled against them as the prosecution has not been able to bring home the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The appellants are also discharged from the liabilities of the bail bonds furnished earlier in this case. 15. In the result, this appeal is allowed.