JUDGMENT : Ahluwalia, J. In the instant case, on 22nd of January, 2009 at around 04:00 P.M. near Tehsil Department, Opposite Electricity Department, indiscriminate shots were fired on the person of Chandraprakash Gaira @ Kaju son of Ramesh Chand (PW-2). The said shots were fired by two persons. 2. Case of the prosecution, in nut-shell, is that two assailants had acted in conspiracy with accused, namely (i) Tarun Chaturvedi, (ii) Raju Tantia @ Vijay Singh, (iii) Amit Jain and (iv) Manak @ Gopalkrishna respectively. 3. Present appellant, namely Tarun Chaturvedi was apprehended on the next day of alleged occurrence i.e. on 23.01.2009. Other accused absconded. Co-accused – Om @ Omprakash was apprehended on 12.12.2011, whereas another co-accused Amit Jain and Raju Tantia @ Vijay Singh were arrested on 29.11.2010 & 30.03.2012 respectively. 4. In the present case, two separate trials were conducted. One against accused - Tarun Chaturvedi and another against three co-accused, namely (i) Amit Jain, (ii) Raju Tantia @ Vijay Singh and (iii) Om @ Omprakash. 5. Present appellant - Tarun Chaturvedi was convicted for offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 120-B I.P.C. on 27.01.2011 by the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, (Fast Track), Chhabra, District Baran and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. Accused - Tarun Chaturvedi in order to challenge his conviction and sentence has instituted present appeal i.e. D.B. Criminal Appeal No.301/2011 before this Court. 6. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Chhabra rendered another judgment dated 01.10.2013, whereby co-accused - Amit Jain, Vijay Singh @ Raju Tantia were acquitted, but Om @ Omprakash was held guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 120-B I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo two months additional rigorous imprisonment. 7. Co-accused - Om @ Omprakash aggrieved against conviction and sentence has preferred another appeal i.e. D.B. Criminal Appeal No.859/2013. Since two separate trials were conducted and two different judgments were delivered, therefore, we shall decide both the appeals before us separately, but simultaneously. 8. Jogdhyan (PW-1) had presented a written-report (Exhibit-P/6) before Station House Officer, Police Station, Chhabra, District Baran, on the basis of which a formal First Information Report (Exhibit-P/24) was registered. 9. Since two separate trials were conducted and two different judgments were delivered, therefore, we shall decide both the appeals before us separately, but simultaneously. 8. Jogdhyan (PW-1) had presented a written-report (Exhibit-P/6) before Station House Officer, Police Station, Chhabra, District Baran, on the basis of which a formal First Information Report (Exhibit-P/24) was registered. 9. The written-report (Exhibit-P/6), when translated into English reads as under :- To, The Station House Officer, Police Station, Chhabra District Baran Subject : Regarding lodging of the report. Sir, In the context of above noted subject, it is submit that I am resident of Village Chhabra. My cousin (son of uncle) Chandraprakash Gaira @ Kaju s/o Ramesh Chandra Gaira is journalist in the Dainik Bhaskar. He is having a shop of Maruti Property Dealer also in front of Tehsil Department. Today at around 04:00 P.M. Chandraprakash @ Kaju on motorcycle from his house came towards shop. At that time, two unidentified persons came on motorcycle in front of the shop of Chandraprakash @ Kaju. Immediately, on arrival at common passage, said unidentified two persons fired indiscriminate shots at Chandraprakash @ Kaju. The shots hit Chandraprakash @ Kaju on right side of abdomen, right shoulder and mouth. Kaju fell at the spot. I, along with Balbahadur @ Pappu Meena, Deepak and Sanjay Gaira immediately on motorcycle brought him to Chhabra Hospital. From where, he has been referred for treatment at Kota. The assailants, after firing shots, ran away from the spot. I and Sanjay can identify assailants. Occurrence has also been witnessed by the persons standing near shop of Kaju." 10. On the basis of above said written-report (Exhibit-P/6), a formal First Information Report (Exhibit-P/24) was registered for offences punishable under Sections 307/34 I.P.C. and under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. 11. Injured - Chandraprakash Gaira @ Kaju (PW-2) on 22.01.2009 was medico-legally examine by Dr. Hariom Goyal (PW-9). 12. In the Injury Report (Exhibit-P/9), Doctor had noted following injuries on the person of injured - Chandraprakash Gaira @ Kaju:- 1. Gunshot wound (wound of entry) 1/1 cm x through and through margins. 2. Gunshot wound (wound of entry) 1x1 cm margins 3. Gunshot would (wound of entry) 3 number 1 x 1 cm approximately 1 cm far to each other." 13. Gunshot wound (wound of entry) 1/1 cm x through and through margins. 2. Gunshot wound (wound of entry) 1x1 cm margins 3. Gunshot would (wound of entry) 3 number 1 x 1 cm approximately 1 cm far to each other." 13. This witness (PW-9) further stated that attending Doctor of S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur had opined that injured - Chandraprakash Gaira @ Kaju had suffered fracture of right mandible, collection of blood was found inside the lungs and the injury to liver was also grievous in nature. 14. Mr. D.K. Dixit, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant, has contended that Jogdhyan (PW-1), Chandraprakash Gaira @ Kaju (PW-2), Ritesh Sharma (PW-6), Sanjay Gaira (PW-7) and Ashok Khanduja (PW-18) have brought on record the history of estranged relations between the parties and fact that accused-appellant had earlier threatened Chandraprakash Gaira @ Kaju (PW-2), Ashok Khanduja (PW-18) and Jogdhyan (PW-1) of dire consequence and further to the effect that the complainant-party should not harass Tarun Chaturvedi. 15. Counsel appearing for the accused-appellant has submit that it has come in the evidence of Ashok Khanduja (PW-18) that on 15.01.2009 the appellant had given a threat that he will engage assailants by offering 'supari', and witnesses and Chandraprakash Gaira @ Kaju shall face dire consequences. Counsel further submit that except motive and the alleged fact that before the occurrence accused had given a threat, there is no other admissible evidence with the prosecution to infer that the appellant had engaged any assailant or assailants. 16. To appreciate the arguments raised before us, it is necessary to note here testimony of Ashok Khanduja (PW-18). 17. In the Court, this witness (PW-18) deposed that he is a resident of Talvandi-Kota and is doing business of property dealer. In the year, 2003, Yogendra and Tarun were his partners. For purchase of land, they used to deploy the fund provided by financiers. Thereafter, they used to carve out the plots and gather booking amount. The witness further stated that in the year, 2005 at Baran Road, they had purchased thirty-bighas of land. Investment for the purchase was made by the financiers. They had sold demarcated plots and from profit, they had purchased another chunk of land. In the year, 2006 recession had set in and number of booking were cancelled. The witness further stated that in the year, 2005 at Baran Road, they had purchased thirty-bighas of land. Investment for the purchase was made by the financiers. They had sold demarcated plots and from profit, they had purchased another chunk of land. In the year, 2006 recession had set in and number of booking were cancelled. At that time, Tarun also told this witness that the amount, which has been advanced, be returned, otherwise, he will loose the money. Tarun asked this witness to make some payment and remaining amount shall be arranged by the accused-appellant by selling the plots. After sometime, this witness asked Tarun to return the amount advanced, otherwise, he should handover the papers of the land. On demand of papers and files of the plots and accounts, Tarun accused-appellant found vacillating. 18. To cut the long history short, it can be noticed that Tarun Chaturvedi, present respondent, as per witnesses, had extended threat to Ashok Khanduja (PW-18) and injured Chandraprakash Gaira @ Kaju (PW-2) that in case, they insist for return of money or handing over of the files, they will be liquidated. It is stated that Tarun Chaturvedi had a access to a gang and through the members of the gang, he had threatened of liquidation to the witnesses. 19. Besides evidence of the previous conduct that the respondent had extended threats and the relations between the witnesses and injured were estranged, there is no other admissible evidence on record. 20. Mrs. Sonia Shandilya, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Rajasthan and Mr. Pankaj Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant, have built their entire edifice around the fact that the respondent was arrested on the next day of alleged occurrence i.e. on 23.01.2009 and during the course of interrogation, the respondent admitted that he had given Rs. five lacs to co-accused-Om @ Omprakash, Amit Jain and Vijay Singh @ Raju Tantia for opening murderous assault upon Chandraprakash Gaira @ Kaju (PW-2). 21. We cannot accept the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Rajasthan and the learned counsel appearing for the complainant. 22. five lacs to co-accused-Om @ Omprakash, Amit Jain and Vijay Singh @ Raju Tantia for opening murderous assault upon Chandraprakash Gaira @ Kaju (PW-2). 21. We cannot accept the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Rajasthan and the learned counsel appearing for the complainant. 22. It is a well settled legal position that anything said by the accused, during interrogation, is inadmissible in evidence and is hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, therefore, we cannot take interrogation note, prepared by the Investigating Agency into consideration. 23. Once we rule out interrogation note from consideration, only evidence relied by learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant, is the list of call details between present respondent-Tarun Chaturvedi and co-accused-Om @ Omprakash, Amit Jain and Vijay Singh @ Raju Tantia respectively. 24. It is to be noted here that co-accused-Amit Jain and Vijay Singh @ Raju Tantia have been acquitted by the trial Court, as result of a separate trial and judgment dated 01.10.2013. 25. Vide a separate judgment of even date, we have upheld conviction of co-accused-Om @ Omprakash, who being a real assailant, has been identified by the injured witness. 26. In the list of call details, there is no mention that the present appellant had ever called co-accused-Om @ Omprakash. 27. Be that as it may, we notice it with a great regret that the prosecution agency had obtained no Certificate within the meaning of Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act to prove an electronic record as secondary evidence. 28. In the case of Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer and Others, reported in (2014) 10 S.C.C. 473 , three-judge Bench of Supreme Court, while overruling case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Novjot Sandhu, reported in (2005) 11 S.C.C. 600 , has held that an electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in evidence, unless requirements of Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, are satisfied. 29. In the present case, State has admittedly not produced on record any Certificate in terms of Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. Thus, list of call details cannot be taken into consideration being inadmissible. 30. 29. In the present case, State has admittedly not produced on record any Certificate in terms of Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. Thus, list of call details cannot be taken into consideration being inadmissible. 30. Once we discard interrogation note and the list of call details, being inadmissible evidence, then except motive and threats extended by the appellant, there remain no evidence on record to connect present appellant with co-accused-Om @ Omprakash, a person who actually fired shots upon injured-Chandraprakash Gaira @ Kaju (PW-2). Thus, prosecution has miserably failed to connect present appellant with the person, who had actually fired and, thus, we cannot assume that the present appellant may have engaged the assailants. 31. Consequently, for the lack of evidence, we are constrained to accept the present appeal. 32. Thus, as a matter of abundant caution, we extend the benefit of doubt to the present respondent–Tarun Chaturvedi. 33. Consequently, we accept present appeal by setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court and acquit the appellant of the charges. 34. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellant is direct to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- [Rupees Twenty Thousand Only] and a surety bond in the like amount, before the trial Court. The bonds, so furnished shall be effective for a period of six-months. The bonds shall contain an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Appeal allowed - Accused to Executive bond for Rs. 20,000/- U/S 437-A Cr.P.C. to Appeal before Supreme Court if necessary.