JUDGMENT :- The appellant herein stands convicted for offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer R.I. for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.10001/- i.d. to undergo S.I. for 3 months, he is also convicted under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer R.I. for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs. 100/- i.d. to undergo S.I. for one month in Sessions Case No. 200 of 2006 by Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli vide Judgment and Order dated 19/1/2007. Hence, this appeal. 2. The appellant herein was enlarged on bail by this Court (Smt. Y.K. Tahilramani, J) in Criminal Appeal No. 114 of 2007 by an order dated 14th February, 2007 on a condition that he shall report to Palus Police Station once in a week during the pendency of the appeal. It is a matter of record that the appellant after having been granted bail by this Court was arrested in Crime No. 13 of 2009 registered at Palus Police Station for offence punishable under Section 419, 420, 205 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He was arrested alongwith one Sandeep Dhanawade on 5/2/2009. The State filed an application bearing Criminal Application No. 226 of 2013 seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the present appellant on account of non-compliance of the orders passed by this Court. Learned APP has submitted that the appellant had caused his attendance to the police station through proxy. Criminal Application No. 226 of 2013 was allowed and the order granting bail in favour of the appellant vide order dated 14/2/2008 was cancelled by an order dated 4/7/2013. The matter was hence, enlisted for final hearing as the accused is in jail. 3. Such of the facts which are necessary for the decision of this appeal are as follows: (i) On 21st April, 2005 Sunil D. Mahadik (PSI) had gone to Atpadi in Sumo car alongwith API S. Tate, Police Head Constable More, P.C. Jangam, Wagh, Thorwade alongwith the accused who were at Tested in Crime No. 37 of 2005. 3. Such of the facts which are necessary for the decision of this appeal are as follows: (i) On 21st April, 2005 Sunil D. Mahadik (PSI) had gone to Atpadi in Sumo car alongwith API S. Tate, Police Head Constable More, P.C. Jangam, Wagh, Thorwade alongwith the accused who were at Tested in Crime No. 37 of 2005. At about 5.45 p.m. when he was near Tasgav alongwith the said police staff and the accused API Tate received a message on his cell phone that the accused Irshad Landge and Shehnawaz Shaikh who were wanted criminals in Criminal Case filed against them in Ashta Police Station were proceeding towards Sangli via Vasagade in a Maruti van No. MH-04-AC 2138. Hence, API Tate and police staff were waiting near Pachava mail phata. (ii) At about 6.10 p.m. a Maruti van of black colour was seen coming from Malwani road. There were two persons in the car. Upon seeking the police staff the driver of the vehicle accelerated the speed and turned his car towards Sangli. In the meanwhile, the person who was sitting next to the driver in the said vehicle jumped outside the vehicle and started running. The other persons who proceeded with the van ahead gave dash to one cycle and drove the vehicle rashly. The police constable Thorwade and Wagh chased the person who was running. The person who was accosted was taken to Sangli by another vehicle.' (iii) Thereafter, PSI Mahadik chased Maruti van by his Sumo car. The driver of the Maruti van halted the vehicle near the sugarcane crop and tried to conceal himself in the standing sugarcane crop. The PSI Mahadik alongwith police constable Jangam chased the person. When the said person noticed that he was being chased and would be accosted, he fired revolver towards PSI Mahadik. Then PSI Mahadik also took his service revolver to deter the said person from escaping, but in vain. The said person had disappeared in the crop. PSI Mahadik called for additional force to arrest the person. However, he could not accost him. (iv) The person who was sent to Sangli Police Station was identified as Shahanawaj Moula Shaikh. PSI Mahadik lodged FIR against him. The person who had escaped from the clutches of the police was identified as Irshad Musa Landge i.e. the present appellant. PSI Mahadik called for additional force to arrest the person. However, he could not accost him. (iv) The person who was sent to Sangli Police Station was identified as Shahanawaj Moula Shaikh. PSI Mahadik lodged FIR against him. The person who had escaped from the clutches of the police was identified as Irshad Musa Landge i.e. the present appellant. He was absconding and hence, charge-sheet was tiled against him under Section 299 Cr. P.C. in Sessions Case No. 221 of 2005. Shahanawaj Shaikh was tried in Sessions Case No. 221 of 2005 and it was concluded on 5th May, 2006. (v) The present appellant was arrested on 21st June, 2006. The supplementary charge sheet was filed against him under Section 307 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 r/w. Section 24 of the Indian Arms Act. The prosecution had filed the purshis praying that the evidence recorded in Sessions Case No. 221 of 2005 be read in the present case i.e. Sessions Case No. 200 of 2006. In Sessions Case No. 221 of 2005, 8 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. In addition, the prosecution examined Sharad Patil and Anil Mali in Sessions Case No. 200 of 2006. 4. P.W. 1 Sharad Patil who acted as a panch for seizure of Maruti car was declared hostile. 5. P.W. 2 Anil Mali has stated that he was the owner of Maruti van. On 21/4/2005 he had been to Walwa alongwith said van. Ritesh Relekar and his friends were in the vehicle. One person had taken his vehicle forcibly from his possession. He had stated that the said person is not present in the court. 6. These are the only two witnesses who are examined by the prosecution in the case against the present appellant. 7. In Sessions Case No. 221 of 2005, following witnesses were examined: P.W. 1 Vijay Vasant Patil acted as a panch for arresting the accused Shahanawaj Shaikh. He was declared hostile by the prosecution. 8. P.W. 2 Prakash Sagare acted as a panch. He was also declared hostile by the prosecution. 9. P.W.3 Prakash Patil has acted as a panch for the spot of incident. They had seized the Maruti van. The witness has proved the contents of the spot panchanama which is at Exh. 19. He was subsequently declared hostile. 10. 8. P.W. 2 Prakash Sagare acted as a panch. He was also declared hostile by the prosecution. 9. P.W.3 Prakash Patil has acted as a panch for the spot of incident. They had seized the Maruti van. The witness has proved the contents of the spot panchanama which is at Exh. 19. He was subsequently declared hostile. 10. P.W.4 Anil Mali was also examined in Sessions Case No. 221 of 2005. His deposition is based on hearsay evidence. It is elicited in his cross-examination that he had learnt from Relekar that some paradhi persons had robbed him while proceeding to Walva. He has also admitted that Relekar had come to Walva to recover his money and his mobile phone from paradhi person. He was searching for paradhi person with the help of local persons. He has admitted that police had not come to his village for enquiry and that he had not disclosed about it to anybody till his statement was recorded. 11. P.W. 5 Vaibhav Patil has been declared hostile. P.W. 6 Sanjay Pawar is also declared hostile. 12. P.W. 7 Sunil Mahadik is the PSI. He has deposed before the Court that on that day, he had seen Maruti van approaching towards him. He has seen that Shahanawaj has jumped from the running vehicle whereas Irshad Landge has escaped with the vehicle. He has stated that while he was chasing the van of Irshad, he had stopped his van and ran towards sugarcane crop. While chasing Irshad, he had fired two shots towards them and therefore, he had taken out his service revolver. In the meantime, Irshad had disappeared in the sugar cane crop. It is elicited in the cross-examination that on that day 'the accused to whom they were carrying, were involved in the crime of Atpadi Police Station. P.W. 7 categorical1y admitted in the cross-examination that he was taking the accused in private vehicle without paying charges. He has categorical1y admitted that al1 policemen were in civil dress. Malwadi road was rough road having width of 15 feet. P.W. 7 has further contended that they had taken search of Irshad Landge for one and half hour. In the second incident Ritesh Relekar was injured in police firing. He has further admitted that API Tate had not received information about passing of Irshad and other accused in van towards Sangli via Vasagade. 13. P.W. 7 has further contended that they had taken search of Irshad Landge for one and half hour. In the second incident Ritesh Relekar was injured in police firing. He has further admitted that API Tate had not received information about passing of Irshad and other accused in van towards Sangli via Vasagade. 13. From the evidence on record, it appears that most of the witnesses were hostile and the conviction is recorded only on the basis of suspicion. The accused was absconding. The learned Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court (P.V. Hardas and D.V. Daware, JJ) in the case of Saheblal Jumassha Sayyad & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2010 ALL MR (Cri) 766, in order to substantiate that the abscondance of accused itself is not conclusive either of guilt or that of a guilty conscious. A person may abscond of fear of being involved in the offence or for any other al1ied reason. In any case, it is incumbent upon the investigating agency to seek copies of charge-sheet and furnish the same to the accused. 14. It is submitted by the Counsel for the appellant that the police personnels have specifical1y admitted that they were not in the regular uniform, but were in civil dress and therefore, the accused/appellant could not identify him as the police officer. It is pertinent to note that according to the prosecution two bullets were fired at the officers. None of the bullets was seized on the spot. The revolver was recovered at the instance of the co-accused. 15. In the present case, there is nothing to indicate that the accused/appellant was in fact absconding till the date of his arrest. The Counsel submits that the appellant was not aware that the persons chasing him are police officers as they were traveling in private car and were in civil dress. Moreover, although the bullets were fired from the revolver, no bullet was found on the spot. The witnesses were not injured. The prosecution has failed to discharge the onus that the appellant was in possession of the revolver with which he has fired at P.W. 7. The bullets were not seized in the course of conducting spot panchanama. Therefore, there is no incriminating evidence against the accused/appellant. The witnesses were not injured. The prosecution has failed to discharge the onus that the appellant was in possession of the revolver with which he has fired at P.W. 7. The bullets were not seized in the course of conducting spot panchanama. Therefore, there is no incriminating evidence against the accused/appellant. In the course of recording the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, there is no mention of the revolver which was in the possession of the accused/appellant. In question No.7 a question is put to the accused about firing two shots towards P.W. 7. There is lack of evidence against the present appellant to hold him guilty for offence punishable under Section 307 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code. 16. The very fact that the appellant was not aware that the persons chasing him were the police officers is sufficient to hold that he would not be guilty of the offence punishable under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code. In view of the fact that no question was put to the accused that he was in possession of the revolver from which he has fired two shots would also entitle him to acquittal under Section 307 of, the Indian Penal Code by extending him the benefit of doubt. Hence, the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 307 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code deserves to be quashed and set aside. Hence, following order: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 307 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the Ad-hoc District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli vide Judgment and Order dated 19th January, 2007 is quashed and set aside. (iii) He be released forthwith, if not required in any other offence. (iv) Writ of the order be expedited. (v) Office to communicate the order to the appellant through the Superintendent of Jail in which the appellant is lodged. Appeal allowed.