JUDGMENT : ANJANA PRAKASH, J. 1. The appeal has been filed by the Informant against the judgment of acquittal of Respondents No.2 and 3 by judgment dated 28.4.2015 passed by the 6th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Banka in Sessions Trial No. 744 of 2012 (G.R. No. 138 of 2012 Trial No. 77 of 2015). 2. The prosecution case according to P.W.5 Nunu Prasad Yadav is that on the previous day i.e. 31.01.2012 in the evening his son Gunjan Yadav, aged about 14 years, had gone for bisarjan of the Sarswati idol in which at about 7 P.M. he had heard shots of gunfire. Then he along with his son Ranjan Yadav (P.W.4) went to the place of occurrence, where they were told that near the house of Yogendra Yadav, Gunjan Yadav and Shashi Yadav (Respondent No.3) had fought between themselves, after which Shashi Yadav had shot at his son Gunjan Yadav, on account of which he was injured. Thereafter Jwala Yadav (Respondent No.2), father of Shashi Yadav, had come there and both of them had taken away the injured. On this information, his son Ranjan Yadav and himself had looked for their son in the house of the relatives but could not find him, at which he was going to the Police Station to give information but he was met by the Police Officer on way, at which he had given the fard-beyan. He alleged that the Respondents No.2 and 3 had got disappeared his son. 3. During trial the prosecution examined six witnesses. P.W.1 Basuki Pd. Singh, P.W.2 Vijay Pd. Singh and P.W.3 Karu Yadav did not support the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile. However, we find from the evidence of P.W.6 Ajay Kumar Azad, the Investigating Officer that his attention was not drawn to the previous statements of these three witnesses and hence it has no meaning. 4. P.W.4 Ranjan Kumar Yadav, who is named in the First Information Report as one of the persons, who had gone along with the Informant and learnt about the occurrence, gave an eye witness account in Court stating that he was at the place of occurrence when Shashi Yadav (Respondent No.3) had shot at his brother and thereafter the father (Respondent No.2) and son had taken him away on a motorcycle. He further stated that he had disclosed about the occurrence to his father P.W.5, the Informant. He further stated that he had disclosed about the occurrence to his father P.W.5, the Informant. He conceded that the private respondents were his agnates and there was some kind of dispute between them. His attention was drawn to the earlier statement given before the Investigating Officer, from which it appears that he was neither an eye witness to the occurrence nor had he narrated about the occurrence to his father as stated by him in Court. His evidence evidently thus is not fit to be relied upon. 5. P.W.5 Nunu Prasad Yadav as per the First Information Report was not an eye witness to any part of the occurrence but during trial he alleged that he was part eye witness on the point that he had seen the private respondents taking away his son on the motorcycle after he was injured. Evidently his evidence is an improvement and contradiction to his previous statement given in the fard-beyan. 6. On going through the judgment of acquittal, we find that neither has the Trial Court left out any evidence out of consideration nor does the judgment reveal any perversity. We also find ourselves in total agreement with the result of acquittal for the reasons stated above which we do not wish to further elaborate. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. The Respondents No.2 and 3 are discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. Appeal dismissed.