ORDER : This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the conviction and sentence passed on 21.01.2006 (sentence passed on 24.01.2006) by Shri Alok Kumar Dubey, learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. – II, Bokaro in connection with S. T. Case No. 251 of 2003 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for two months. 2. A First Information Report was instituted on 24.04.2000 by Sailendra Kumar (P.W. – 10) in which it was alleged that he was cooking in his residence in Quarter No. 1401, Sector IX/A on 20.04.2000 when someone knocked at his door. Assuming that his father might have come the informant opened the door at which Onkar Pandey, his cousin and one bearded boy of short height entered into the room and closed all the doors and windows and, thereafter, forced the informant on a cot. It is alleged that Onkar Pandey gave him several blows with the help of a dagger whereas the other two accused persons were holding him. It is alleged that when he snatched the dagger from Onkar Pandey the rest of the accused pulled out guns from their waist and shot him. The shot fired by the cousin of Onkar Pandey missed the target but the bearded boy had also shot which hit the chest of the informant. It is alleged that the informant somehow managed to jump from the balcony and thereafter went to the betel shop of Shibu and subsequently he was taken on a motorcycle to Bokaro General Hospital for treatment. The cause of the incident is alleged to be some altercation which had taken place between the accused and the informant on account of donation for Saraswati Pooja. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid allegation Harla P. S. Case No. 40 of 2000 was registered under Sections 307, 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 4. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid allegation Harla P. S. Case No. 40 of 2000 was registered under Sections 307, 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 4. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted by the police and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the court of sessions where charge was framed under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution in course of trial had examined twelve witnesses in support of its case. 6. PW 1, Prakash Chandra, did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile by the prosecution. 7. PW 2, Jungli Singh, has stated that the informant is his nephew. He has stated that on the date of occurrence he was going at about 09:00 PM to his brother’s house where he saw some persons assembled and he came to know of the assault made upon the informant and also saw the blood stained knife. This witness has disclosed that the knife was kept inside the room by him and, thereafter, he went to Bokaro General Hospital to see his nephew. Later on the informant had disclosed about the assault made upon him and the assailants. 8. PW 3, Sheo Prasad Singh, has stated that the informant had come running and had fallen down near the shop of this witness. On being requested the informant was taken to the house of Satendra Kumar on a cycle. This witness has stated that he does not know about the incident. 9. PW 4, Raj Kumar, is the person who along with P.W. – 7 had taken the informant on his scooter to Bokaro General Hospital. He has further deposed that the informant had disclosed about Onkar Pandey, his cousin and one unknown bearded boy who had injured him by means of dagger and fire arm. This witness has admitted that he has not seen the occurrence. 10. PW 5, Bacha Singh, is the father of the informant. He has deposed that he had come to know about his son having been assaulted and the informant had disclosed about the assailants. He has further stated that the informant had jumped from the 3rd floor. However, no injuries were suffered by the informant on account of his jumping from the balcony. 11. PW 6, Jaan Md. He has deposed that he had come to know about his son having been assaulted and the informant had disclosed about the assailants. He has further stated that the informant had jumped from the 3rd floor. However, no injuries were suffered by the informant on account of his jumping from the balcony. 11. PW 6, Jaan Md. Ansari, has stated that the informant resides in the same block as that of this witness. During the incident he had gone to his village and later on he had come to know about the occurrence. 12. PW 7, Satendra Kumar, is the brother of P.W. – 4. This witness has deposed that P.W. – 3 was calling for P.W. – 4 and when he came down he saw the informant in an injured condition. Subsequently the informant was taken to Bokaro General Hospital on a scooter. 13. PW 8, Shipra Roy Choudhary and her husband P.W. – 9 Amresh Roy Choudhary, did not support the prosecution case and they were declared hostile by the prosecution. 14. PW 10, Sailendra Kumar is the informant of the case. He has deposed that he was in his quarter and he heard the sound of knocking at the door. On opening the door the accused persons have forcibly entered and, thereafter, closed all the doors and windows. Onkar Pandey had stabbed him with a dagger several times. This witness has further stated that when he seized the dagger from Onkar Pandey co-accused Satrughan Pandey had shot at him but it missed the target but the shot which was fired by the appellant hit him on his chest and somehow he had jumped from the balcony after which he was taken to Bokaro General Hospital. The cause of the incident according to this witness is with respect to some altercation which had taken place and the appellant had threatened him. He had identified the appellant and the cousin brother of Onkar Nath Pandey in the dock (this witness was shown in the Test Identification Chart but his signature was not present). 15. During cross-examination he has disclosed that the introduction with Onkar Pandey was made by the appellant but he did not know him by name. It has also been stated that the appellant used to teach the younger sister of the informant. 15. During cross-examination he has disclosed that the introduction with Onkar Pandey was made by the appellant but he did not know him by name. It has also been stated that the appellant used to teach the younger sister of the informant. On being questioned this witness has stated that he had suffered some injuries in his hips on account of his jumping from the 3rd floor. 16. PW 11 is Dr. Ajay Kumar, who had examined the informant. This witness has stated that the informant did not receive any fire arm injury. 17. PW 12, Dilip Kumar Das, is the Investigating officer of the case. He had deposed that the Test Identification Parade was conducted by Sri G. K. Mallik, Judicial Magistrate and accused persons were identified by the informant. This witness has also stated about the details of investigation conducted by him. 18. The appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the allegations levelled against him. 19. Having found the offence under Section 307 proved, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. 20. Heard Mr. R. C. P. Sah, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mis. Anita Sinha, learned A.P.P.. 21. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no eye-witness to the occurrence and the entire conviction is based upon the evidence of the informant (P.W. – 10). It has further been submitted that the allegations against the appellant of causing fire arm injury upon the informant has been falsified by the evidence of the Doctor who had stated that there was no fire arm injury on the person of the informant. Learned counsel further submits that neither the Test Identification Chart was exhibited nor the Judicial Magistrate who had conducted the Test Identification Parade had been examined. Learned counsel furthering his argument has submitted that there is no witness on the point of the informant jumping from his 3rd floor balcony and this fact has also not been corroborated by the medical evidence which does not suggest any injury on account of fall. It has also been submitted that Dr. G.N. Sahu, who had operated on the informant was never produced by the prosecution for his examination. It has also been submitted that Dr. G.N. Sahu, who had operated on the informant was never produced by the prosecution for his examination. Moreover as per the own version of the informant he knew the appellant but even then he did not name him in the First Information Report and subsequently his statement was developed that it was the appellant who had introduced Onkar Pandey to the informant. 22. Learned A.P.P. for the State has submitted that the informant has given a vivid description of the occurrence and since the occurrence had taken place inside his quarter there was no question of any person witnessing the assault. Learned A.P.P. has also referred to the evidence of the Doctor wherein it has been stated that the depth of the injury can bee assessed by the surgeon. It has also been submitted that in view of the consistent evidence of the witness (P.W. 10) the learned trial Court had rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant. 23. A perusal of the evidence of witnesses reveals several loopholes on the prosecution case. It is not in dispute that there is no eyewitnesses to the occurrence and it is only P.W. -10 who was at the receiving end of the assault said to have been committed by the appellant and the other two co-accused persons. The informant after receiving the injuries had subsequently jumped from the 3rd floor balcony and thereafter he was taken by P.W. – 3 to the house of P.W. – 7 upon which he was taken to Bokaro General Hospital for his treatment. Assuming that an incident had taken place inside the quarter of P. W. – 10 but neither there is any witness who have stated about any alarm raised by the informant nor any witness who had seen the informant jumping from the 3rd Floor of the apartment. The injuries which have been suffered by him does not include any injury by fall which in fact create a doubt in the story narrated by the informant as it would be well-nigh impossible for any person not to suffer any injury on account of fall from such a great height. The informant has claimed to have identified the appellant in the Test Identification Parade of being the person who had shot him on the chest. The informant has claimed to have identified the appellant in the Test Identification Parade of being the person who had shot him on the chest. The identification becomes doubtful as neither the Judicial Magistrate conducting the Test Identification Parade had been examined nor the Test Identification Chart has been exhibited. Apart from the same the informant himself has stated that Onkar Pandey was introduced to him by the appellant which seems to be not believable. The informant (P.W. – 10) had also disclosed that the appellant used to teach the younger sister of the informant. If such was the situation and if indeed what has been stated by the informant is presumed to be correct even then the same get negated as these facts were never stated by the informant in the initial stage and referring to the appellant as a bearded boy with a short height without naming him definitely creates a suspicion. 24. Such circumstance does not substantiate the identification of the appellant as one of the assailants who had shot fire upon the informant. Even otherwise the assertion of the informant that it is the present appellant who had shot at the informant gets belied by the statement made by the Doctor at Paragraph – 9 of his evidence wherein he had categorically stated that the informant did not suffer any fire arm injuries. 25. In view of the circumstance enumerated above the evidence of the informant (P.W. – 10) in absence of any corroborative evidence either in the form of ocular or medical evidence gets nullified. The learned trial court did not consider these aspects of the matter while convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian penal Code. 26. Since the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt this appeal succeeds and the judgment dated 21.01.2006 (sentence passed on 24.01.2006) passed by Shri Alok Kumar Dubey, learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. – II, Bokaro in connection with S. T. Case No. 251 of 2003 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years is, hereby, set aside. 27. Since the appellant is on bail he is discharged from the liability of his bail bond. Appeal allowed.