Prafulla C. Pant, J.— This appeal, preferred under section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short Cr.P.C), is directed against the judgment and order dated 07.05.1999, passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge Nainital, in Sessions Trial No. 09 of 1998, Sessions Trial No. 10 of 1998 and Sessions Trial No. 12 of 1998, whereby the accused/appellants Anil Kumar and Salim have been convicted under section 307 of I.P.C., and under section 25 Arms Act. Each one of them has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years under section 307 I.P.C., and rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years under section 25 Arms Act. (2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record. (3) Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 30.06.1997, Station Officer Praveen Kumar Tyagi (PW2), Sub Inspector Om Pal Singh and Inspector Mohd. Hanif (PW1) alongwith Constables got information that some miscreants have gathered near Kalyanpuri Tiraha within the limits of Police Station Jaspur. They proceeded to said place in search of the miscreants so that they may be prevented from committing any crime. When they reached near the spot the miscreants believing that they have been surrounded by the police, and opened indiscriminate firing at the police party. Prosecution case is that luckily no fire hit the police men. Thereafter, the policemen at about 8.30 p.m. over powered the three miscreants who disclosed their names Anil Kumar (present appellant no.1), Salim (present appellant no.2) and Bablu @ Ramesh. On the search of their person a pistol of 315 bore alongwith two live cartridges was recovered from the accused Anil Kumar, and 12 bore pistol alongwith two live cartridges was recovered from the other accused Salim. The police prepared recovery memo (Ex A-1) and took the three accused into custody. On the basis of recovery memo, chick First Information Report (Ex A-2) was prepared at Police Station Jaspur on 30.06.1997 at 10.25 p.m. and Crime No. 262 of 1997 was registered in respect of offence punishable under section 307 of I.P.C. Simultaneously, Crime No. 263 of 1997 was registered in respect of offence punishable under section 25 Arms Act, against the accused Anil Kumar, and the Crime No. 265 of 1997 relating to offence punishable under section 25 Arms Act, was registered against the accused Salim. After investigation made by Sub Inspector Anil Kumar Tyagi (PW4), charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellants Anil Kumar, Salim and the third accused Bablu @ Ramesh, for their trial in respect of offence punishable under section 307 of I.P.C. Separate charge sheets were filed in respect of offence punishable under section 25 Arms Act. Sessions Trial No. 09 of 1998 has arisen out of the charge sheet in respect of offence punishable under section 307 of I.P.C., and other Sessions Trial No. 10 of 1998 and Sessions Trial No. 12 of 1998 have arisen out of the crime registered in respect of offence punishable under section 25 Arms Act, after the Magistrate committed the cases to the court of Sessions for trial. (4) Learned Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital, on 19.11.1998, after hearing the parties framed charge of offence punishable under section 307 of I.P.C., read with section 37 of I.P.C., against both the accused Anil Kumar and Salim to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Separate charge were framed in respect of offence punishabl under section 25 Arms Act, against the two accused to which also they pleaded not guilty. On this prosecution got examined PW1 Sub Inspector Mohd. Hanif, PW2 Sub Inspector Praveen Kumar Tyagi, PW3 Constable Akil Hussain and PW4 Sub Inspector Anil Kumar Tyagi (Investigation Officer). The prosecution evidence was put to the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which the accused pleaded same to be false. However, no evidence in defence was adduced. After hearing the parties, the trial court found both the accused Anil Kumar and Salim guilty of charge of offence punishable under section 307 I.P.C., and one punishable under section 25 Arms Act. After hearing on sentence each one of them was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years under section 307 of I.P.C., and rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years under section 25 Arms Act. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 07.05.1999, this appeal was filed before Allahabad High Court on 23rd of June 1999. The appeal is received by this court under section 35 of U.P. Reorganization Act 2000 (central Act 29 of 2000), for its disposal. (5) From the lower court record it appears the case of the third accused Bablu @ Ramesh was separated by the trial court on 05.11.1998. The appeal is received by this court under section 35 of U.P. Reorganization Act 2000 (central Act 29 of 2000), for its disposal. (5) From the lower court record it appears the case of the third accused Bablu @ Ramesh was separated by the trial court on 05.11.1998. (6) From the statement of PW1 Sub Inspector Mohd. Hanif, PW2 Sub Inspector Praveen Kumar Tyagi, and PW3 Constable Akil Hussain, it is clear that none of them, nor any of their colleagues received any fire arm injury. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that had the three miscreants fired the shots in the manner suggested by these witnesses, atleast some one of the police party must have received the injury. It is contended that the evidence of the three police men cannot be believed as the same does not get corroborated from any injury report. This court has examined the evidence on record cautiously. It is true that even if the fire shot has not hit a person, still it can make out the case under section 307 of I.P.C., provided the fire is actually shot with intention to kill such person, but on scrutiny of the evidence on record, this court is of the view that three miscreants fired shots at the policemen, but none of them received any injury which creates reasonable doubt as to the truthfulness of the prosecution story narrated by the above mentioned three eye witnesses. (7) Though, recovery of fire arm weapons with live cartridges have been shown from the accused/appellants Anil Kumar and Salim, but there is no public witness of the recovery. It is not necessary in each and every case that there must be a public witness of the recovery, but in the present case, neither the police got sent the firm arm weapon for examination if such weapon was actually in a working state, or whether actually shots were fired from them, nor any live cartridge was sent for examination if the same were actually live. As such the oral evidence of the witnesses in the present case appears to be doubtful. (8) Apart from the above, there are material inconsistencies in the statements of the eye witnesses. As such the oral evidence of the witnesses in the present case appears to be doubtful. (8) Apart from the above, there are material inconsistencies in the statements of the eye witnesses. PW1 Sub Inspector Mohd Hanif has stated that the police party got divided into three groups before surrounding the accused, but PW2 Sub Inspector Praveen Kumar Tyagi denied any devision of the police party in the manner as above. Though, simply on the ground of inconsistency the statement of eyewitness can not be disbelieved, but in the present case, neither the statements of the eyewitnesses are corroborated from any medical evidence (as there is no injury report), nor is their any evidence corroborating that the weapon allegedly recovered from the appellants if the same were in a working state, as such, reading the entire evidence together, this court finds that the prosecution has failed to prove charge against the accused/appellants Anil Kumar and Salim in respect of offence punishable under section 307 of I.P.C., and under section 25 Arms Act, beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, accused/appellants are entitled the acquittal from the charge framed against them, as the same can not be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. (9) Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 07.05.1999, passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge Nainital, in Sessions Trial No. 09 of 1998, Sessions Trial No. 10 of 1998 and Sessions Trial No. 12 of 1998 is hereby set aside. The accused/appellants Anil Kumar and Salim are acquitted from the charge of offence punishable under section 307 of I.P.C., and from the charge of offence punishable under section 25 Arms Act. They are on bail. They need not to surrender. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the trial court. _