JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated the 30th of November, 1998 by which appellant Makun Sah was held guilty of committing offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code whereas appellant Mangal Sah was convicted of committing offence under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The two appellants were heard on sentence on 01.12.1998 and each of them was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years for their respective conviction. It is the joint appeal by the two appellants to challenge the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against them. 2. The facts of the case are narrated in Ext. 3, the Fardbeyan of P.W. 10 Indu Devi. It was recorded while the lady was hospitalized in M.J.K. Hospital, Bettiah on 14.03.1997. It was stated by P.W. 10 that in the last Shravan-month she had been assaulted by Thag Sah and others and she had filed a case which was pending in any Court in Bettiah. The accused persons were pressurizing her and were also threatening her to compromise the case and in that connection they had entered inside her house and had again asked her to withdraw the case, else, the consequences were not be good. The informant P.W. 10 stated to them that she will compromise the case after Holi in that year. 3. The further case of the prosecution was that on 14.03.1997 the two appellants entered inside her courtyard and started abusing her which was objected to by her. P.W. 10 also asked the two appellants to get out of her Angan as she was not ready to withdraw or compromise the case. As soon as she had told the accused persons to be off out, it is alleged that appellant Makun Sah who was armed with a country made gun fired a shot aiming at her neck which hit her on her left arm as also on her face. Appellant Makun Sah reloaded his weapon and fired the other shot, but in between the informant rushed into her house to regain safety, but the shot hit her in her legs and she fell down on her bed inside her room. People came and shifted her to the hospital, where she was hospitalized. 4. It appears that on the basis of Ext. 3 the First Information Report of the case Ext. People came and shifted her to the hospital, where she was hospitalized. 4. It appears that on the basis of Ext. 3 the First Information Report of the case Ext. 2 was drawn up and the investigation was taken up by P.W. 2, Sub-Inspector Rajiv Choudhary who, on the relevant date, was posted as Sub-Inspector of Police in Bairia Police Station. He took up the investigation on 19.03.1997 after institution of the case and came to inspect the place of occurrence and after examining the witnesses and procuring the medical report Ext. 1 submitted charge-sheet for the trial of the two appellants. 5. The appellants have set up a plea of false implication on account of chronic pending litigation. 6. Sri Ram Adya Singh, learned counsel for the appellants took me through the evidence of the witnesses and submitted that it was a case of false implication and no independent person was coming in support of P.W. 10 Indu Devi. Submission also was that witnesses who came in support of the informant had not really seen anyone firing the shot and had only seen the two appellants ejecting from the house of P.W. 10. It was, lastly, submitted that as regards appellant Mangal Sah, there was virtually no evidence indicating that he had participated in the commission of the offence in any manner or that he was sharing the common intention and was acting in furtherance of that intention with appellant Makun Sah. Submission was that Mangal Sah deserved to be acquitted in the face of the evidence available. 7. Sri Sujit Kumar Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has conceded that the evidence as regards appellant Mangal Sah may not be as sufficient as to uphold his conviction, however, Sri Singh submitted that the witnesses who arrived at the scene of occurrence were lending support sufficiently to the prosecution story and the conviction of appellant Makun Sah deserved to be upheld. 8. 8. The parties were at daggers drawn appears admitted by P.W. 10 in paragraph 16 of her evidence when she was very forthright in stating before the trial Court that there were cases pending between the present appellants and that they had also filed a case against her and others which was pending in some Court as appears from paragraph 10 of P.W. 9 Mohan Sah, the husband of the informant and also from paragraph 16 of P.W. 7 Sumanti Devi who happened to be one of the family members of P.W. 10. But that fact by itself may not render the evidence of P.W. 10 Indu Devi unacceptable or fit to be rejected. When a witness is inimical or interested then in that case what the Court has to do is to approach the evidence with care and caution and find out as to whether there was any element of distrust appearing from the evidence of such an interested or inimical witness which renders his or her evidence not acceptable or not fit to base conviction upon. I have carefully gone through the evidence of P.W. 10 Indu Devi and I find that she had very forthrightly stated to the trial Court that there were cases pending between the parties. As regards the place of occurrence she has stated that while she was sitting in her courtyard, the accused persons came and entered into some exchange of words with her to pressurize her to withdraw/compromise the case and ultimately, appellant Makun Sah fired the shot which hit her, whereafter he reloaded his weapon for firing the second shot. The cross-examination was not very lengthy but it appears quite relevant and effective as regards the facts alleged by P.W. 10 during her examination-in-chief and on perusal of her cross-examination or her entire evidence, what I find is that there was not a single fact brought on record which could render her evidence untrustworthy. 9. So far as the evidence of other witnesses is concerned, the evidence of P.W. 8 Raktu Sah who happened to be the brother of P.W. 10 as also the evidence of P.W. 14 Arjun Sah another brother of P.W. 10, I do not have any hesitation in not accepting their evidence. 9. So far as the evidence of other witnesses is concerned, the evidence of P.W. 8 Raktu Sah who happened to be the brother of P.W. 10 as also the evidence of P.W. 14 Arjun Sah another brother of P.W. 10, I do not have any hesitation in not accepting their evidence. I may not believe Raktu Sah (P.W. 8) for one particular reason which appears in paragraph 13 of his evidence when he stated that he had never given any statement to the police. Thus his evidence becomes inadmissible. So far as the evidence of P.W. 8 is concerned, he was the full brother of P.W. 10 and who was resident of another village which was situated about 2-3 miles away from the house of the informant. He has stated that he had come to the village of the informant for purchasing some vegetables. No particular reason has been assigned by him as to why he had come to the village of the informant in the early morning for purchasing vegetables, specially that vegetable was not available in his village. Moreover, he was not a witness cited in the First Information Report. These are a few reasons upon which I have some hesitation in acting upon the evidence of P.W. 8 and P.W. 14 Arjun Sah. 10. So far as the evidence of P.W. 9 Mohan Sah is concerned, he himself has stated that he was not in his home at the time of occurrence and when he came back, others had stated about the incident. None has stated that Mohan Sah was informed by any person about the incident. The evidence of P.W. 9 becomes inadmissible. But so far as the witness, like, P.W. 7 Sumanti Devi is concerned, her credibility, I am ready to accept for two reasons; the first being that her name appears in the First Information Report as one of the persons who had accompanied P.W. 10 to the hospital and she also stated that as soon as she heard the sound of gun shot, she rushed into the Angan of P.W. 10 and while so doing she found the two appellants ejecting from there. P.W. 7 stated that appellant Makun Sah was armed with a fire arm and they were also uttering threats. When she went inside the house she found P.W. 10 lying injured and bleeding. P.W. 7 stated that appellant Makun Sah was armed with a fire arm and they were also uttering threats. When she went inside the house she found P.W. 10 lying injured and bleeding. She had further stated that the bed was bearing fresh stains of blood and her clothes also bore stains of fresh blood and she along with others collected P.W. 10 and rushed her to the hospital. The other aspect which renders P.W. 7 a trustworthy witness is that if she was to depose falsely, there was nothing for her not to project herself as an eye-witness, which she was not doing. P.W. 7 Sumanti Devi stated that she had seen P.W. 10 Indu Devi bearing injuries and bleeding from different parts of her body which evidence appears corroborated by P.W. 11 Dr. Ved Bhanu Prasad who found the following injuries on the person of P.W. 10 Indu Devi: 1. Lacerated wound on tip of nose 1” x 1½” x ¼” extending to right nostril. 2. Lacerated wound on upper right lip 1” x ½” x ¼”. 3. Lacerated wound on right cheek ½” x ½” x ¼”. 4. Lacerated wound over right arm middle 1” x ½” with fracture humers. 5. Lacerated wound towards right thigh lower part ½” x ½” into bone deep. 6. Charring over face more marks on left side. 7. Lacerated wound over posterior portion of right arm ½” x ½”. 11. On perusal of the injuries which has been described by P.W. 11, there does not remain any doubt about the seven injuries which were found on different organs of the body of the deceased which were caused by gun shot and some of them were at such vital parts of the body, such as, nose, lip, cheek and face as also on arms, posterior portion of right arm and lower limb. What I find is that besides the corroboration which was coming from the evidence of P.W. 7 to the evidence of P.W. 10, the corroboration was also coming to her evidence from the evidence of P.W. 11 that P.W. 10 was fired at and was hit and injured. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants was drawing the attention of the Court towards the lack of acceptable material evidence as regards the complicity of appellant no. 2 Mangal Sah. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants was drawing the attention of the Court towards the lack of acceptable material evidence as regards the complicity of appellant no. 2 Mangal Sah. I have also gone through the evidence very carefully and what I find is that P.W. 7 Sumanti Devi as also P.W. 10 Indu Devi have not assigned any weapon into the hands of appellant no. 2 Mangal Sah. There is nothing on the record to indicate that Mangal Sah had even uttered a word, he might have abused the informant. Except that there was nothing which could show that he was acting in furtherance of the common intention or that the two appellants had shared a common intention and in furtherance thereof, they had committed the act for which the two had been convicted. In that view of the evidence what I find is that benefit of doubt accrues to appellant no. 2 Mangal Sah. In the result, the appeal, as against his conviction and order of sentence, stands allowed and appellant Mangal Sah is acquitted of the charge he has been found guilty of. 13. As regards appellant Makun Sah, I find that his conviction is fully established by admissible, as acceptable evidence and the same is be upheld. 14. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted for lessening the sentence which was awarded to appellant Makun Sah. The Court has drawn the attention of the counsel to Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and illustration (c) appended to it and has further pointed out that in view of the clear acceptable evidence indicating that appellant Makun Sah had fired the shot and had caused the injuries, it could not be a case where leniency could be shown to him. 15. In the result, the appeal filed by Makun Sah stands dismissed. Both the appellants are on bail. Appellant Mangal Sah shall stand discharged from the liability of his bond. The bond of Makun Sah is hereby cancelled. He is directed to surrender to the custody of the Court to serve out the sentence. In case he does not surrender, the Court below shall take all steps necessary to ensure his arrest and committal to custody for serving out the sentence. The appeal is partly allowed as in terms indicated above. Appeal allowed.