JUDGMENT S.A. Khan, J.- Nobody appears on behalf of the appellants. Mr. Arun Kumar Tripathi is appointed as Amicus Curiae in this case to assist this Court. 2. The four appellants before this Court have been found guilty for offence under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years. They have also been found guilty for offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, Arrah in Sessions Trial No. 170 of 1999/Trial No. 128 of 2000. 3. Chhatrapati Roy, the informant of this case has given his Fardbeyan at Sadar Hospital, Arrah on 15.6.1997 claiming that when he was going to ease himself at 5 A.M. on the same day, the appellants came out of hiding and began to fire indiscriminately at him. The informant began to run and claims that he sustained injury just above the right ankle joint. He has stated that he kept running till he reached his house, from where he was taken to the hospital. The informant claims that several persons saw the accused persons running away from the place of occurrence. 4. Altogether six witnesses have been examined in this case. The doctor who has examined Chhatrapati Roy, the informant has found two injuries on his person. Injury No. 1 is a “lacerated wound on medial side 1” above right ankle joint with blackening of skin and inverted margin size being 1½”x 1” x ½”. “Injury No. 2 is lacerated wound on outer side of right leg 3” above injury no. 1. According to the doctor the injuries are simple in nature. It is said that injury no. 2 has been caused by a hard and blunt substance. 5. At this juncture, it is essential to evaluate the medical report. The doctor has found blackening on the leg which according to the doctor indicates that fire arms were used which have caused blackening of the skin. The description of the injury indicates that the firing must have taken place from a close distance or else there would be no chance of blackening of the skin in this case, whereas injury no. The description of the injury indicates that the firing must have taken place from a close distance or else there would be no chance of blackening of the skin in this case, whereas injury no. 2 remains unexplained by the prosecution as the informant has not made out a case that he was assaulted by the accused persons by means of a lathi or any other hard and blunt substance. The evidence in this case would go to show that the medical evidence and the ocular evidence do not support each other. 6. P.W. 1, Lalan Singh, aged about 95 years has stated that he cannot recall the names because of his failing memory. Although he recalls that an occurrence had taken place in which the informant had received injuries. P.W. 2, Babu Lal Rai is a hearsay witness. According to him the informant disclosed the names of the miscreants however, he had not disclosed the father’s name or the address of the miscreants to indicate their village. P.W. 4 is the informant himself. He supports his case and states that he was chased by the four appellants who had fired on him causing injury. No motive has been disclosed for the occurrence. P.W. 5, Digeshwar Rai claims that he saw the informant running away from the place of occurrence. According to him, the appellants had disclosed the name of the miscreants without giving their address or fathers’ name. The statement of P.W. 5 is contrary to the statement before the Investigating Officer, P.W. 7 who has stated in his evidence that Digeshwar Rai had disclosed the name of the appellants before him thereby contradicting the evidence of P.W. 4. 7. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the Trial Court has convicted the appellants relying on the medical report and the statement of the informant. This Court finds that the medical report to say the least does not support manner of occurrence as stated by the informant. The medical report discloses that there is blackening which does not support the manner in which the informant has described the occurrence in the First Information Report or while being examined in Court and, therefore, the evidence of the informant cannot be relied upon as it has to be supported by the medical evidence. The medical report discloses that there is blackening which does not support the manner in which the informant has described the occurrence in the First Information Report or while being examined in Court and, therefore, the evidence of the informant cannot be relied upon as it has to be supported by the medical evidence. This Court thus does not think it safe to convict the appellants on the basis of the aforesaid weak and uncorroborated evidence. Thus, the conviction is set aside. 8. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The appellants are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds furnished earlier in this case.