JUDGMENT & ORDER : Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J. By the judgment and order, dated 21.01.2016, passed in Sessions Trial No. 264 of 2000, learned Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Ara, while convicting accused Shyam Sunder Singh for the charge framed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, has recorded acquittal of respondent Nos. 2 to 6 giving them the benefit of doubt. The said trial arose out of Bihiya P.S. Case No. 28 of 1998, which was registered on the basis of fardbeyan of the informant for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 302 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 Arms Act. The son of the informant is the deceased. 2. The present appeal has been preferred, under proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the informant aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of learned Sessions Judge to the extent he has recorded acquittal of respondent Nos. 2 to 6. 3. It would be apt to refer to the case of the prosecution, as narrated in the fardbeyan, before taking into account the grounds for challenge to the impugned judgment and order. As per the fardbeyan, recorded by the police on 15.03.1998, the informant (P.W.-6), along with his son, namely, Upendra Singh (the deceased) and his brother, namely, Hridaya Nand Singh, had gone to the rice mill of Nandji Singh (P.W.-2) for milling of their paddy, wherein said Nandji Singh (P.W.-2) was engaged in running the mill and one Laxmi Narain Singh was also present there. There was some quarrel taking place between one Sudama Singh and Baran Singh. In the meanwhile, on seeing the son of the informant, said Baran Singh exhorted others to kill him. Baran Singh is said to have handed over his licensed gun to one Shyam Sunder Singh, who shot at the son (Upendra Singh, the deceased) of the informant, which hit him in his chest, whereafter he died. It is further alleged that respondent No. 5 (Barmeshwar Singh) struck Nandji Singh (P.W.-2) with bhala (spear) whereafter he fell down. Accused Abhimanyu Singh (respondent No. 4) took the gun from the accused Shyam Sunder Singh and shot at Nandji Singh (P.W.-2). It is further alleged that respondent No. 5 (Barmeshwar Singh) struck Nandji Singh (P.W.-2) with bhala (spear) whereafter he fell down. Accused Abhimanyu Singh (respondent No. 4) took the gun from the accused Shyam Sunder Singh and shot at Nandji Singh (P.W.-2). Rajendra Singh (respondent No. 3) hit Sudarshan Singh with a garasa (a sharp edged weapon), whereas Manoj Singh (respondent No. 2) and Jitendra Singh (respondent No. 6) assaulted one Chitranjan with lathi. On hearing commotion, co-villagers, namely, Shatrughan Singh (P.W.-4), Ram Pujan Singh (P.W.-7), Ram Bachan Singh, Ram Sarikhan Singh (P.W.-8) came there and saw the occurrence. 4. Upon completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the above named accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 302 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 Arms Act. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, after taking cognizance of the offences under the aforesaid provisions, committed the case for trial. After commitment, charges, under Sections 302 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act were framed against the accused persons. It is to be noted that so far as accused Ram Baran Singh and Rang Bahadur Singh are concerned, they died at the stage of trial. After examination of the prosecution witnesses, prosecution’s evidence was put to the accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They, however, pleaded innocence. 5. At the trial, altogether nine witnesses were examined including Shatrughan Singh (P.W.-1), Nandji Singh (P.W.-2), Ram Sarikhan Singh (P.W.-3), Lallan Singh (P.W.-4) and Ram Bachan Singh (P.W.-5), who are the covillagers. The informant deposed as P.W.-6. Laxmi Narayan Singh, a co-villager, who, according to the fardbeyan, was present at the place of occurrence, was examined as P.W.-7. The doctor, who conducted the postmortem on the deadbody of the deceased, was examined as P.W.-8, whereas the Investigating Officer as P.W.-9. 6. Before we proceed to refer to the evidence adduced at the trial by the prosecution witnesses, it is worthy to note that according to the fardbeyan of the informant, there were four persons present at the place of occurrence including the deceased, viz. the informant/appellant, namely, Garaj Narayan Singh, his son, namely, Upendra Singh (the deceased), Nandji Singh (P.W.- 2), the rice mill owner, and Laxmi Narayan Singh (P.W.-7). the informant/appellant, namely, Garaj Narayan Singh, his son, namely, Upendra Singh (the deceased), Nandji Singh (P.W.- 2), the rice mill owner, and Laxmi Narayan Singh (P.W.-7). According to the fardbeyan, Nandji Singh (P.W.-2) was assaulted with bhala by respondent No. 5 and after he had fallen down, respondent No. 4 had shot at him with firearm and the bullet hit him. Nandji Singh (P.W.-2) has not at all supported the case of the prosecution and he did not name any of the accused persons as the assailants. Whereas, as per the case of the prosecution, Nandji Singh (P.W.-2) had received two injuries, one having been caused by a blow of bhala and the other by a firearm. He, however, denied that he had received any such injury. Laxmi Narayan Singh (P.W.-7), the other person said to have been present at the place of occurrence, has also not supported the case of the prosecution. Both of them have been declared to be hostile at the instance of the prosecution. Further, one Sudarshan Singh was assaulted by respondent No. 3 with garasa/farsa. He was, however, not examined at the trial. One Chitranjan was also alleged to have received injuries in the said occurrence, but he too was not examined by the prosecution. In the fardbeyan, there is no allegation against respondent Nos. 2 to 6 that they had assaulted the deceased. The allegation against them is of assaulting Nandji Singh (P.W.-2), Laxmi Narayan Singh (P.W.-7), Sudarshan Singh and one Chitranjan. Nandji Singh (P.W.-2) and Laxmi Narayan Singh (P.W.-7) have not supported the case of the prosecution and, accordingly, they have been declared hostile at the instance of the prosecution. Said Sudarshan Singh and Chitranjan have not been examined at the trial. It further transpires that no injury, upon any person, other than the deceased, was proved at the trial, though specifically alleged in the fardbeyan. Neither any injury report, to prove the injury on others, was brought on the record by the prosecution nor was any doctor examined in this regard. 7. Learned trial Court, upon consideration of these evidences, has recorded his conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubts the common intention of respondent Nos. 2 to 6 to kill the deceased. The prosecution miserably failed to prove the allegation of assault against them at the trial. 8. 7. Learned trial Court, upon consideration of these evidences, has recorded his conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubts the common intention of respondent Nos. 2 to 6 to kill the deceased. The prosecution miserably failed to prove the allegation of assault against them at the trial. 8. After having gone through the materials available on the record and having carefully perused the impugned judgment and order, we find that the evidence, adduced at the trial, could not be said to be sufficient to prove accusation against respondent Nos. 2 to 6 beyond all reasonable doubts. Learned trial Court, noting these facts, doubted even the presence of these respondents at the spot. The conclusion, arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge, in our view, is a reasonably possible view. The finding to this effect cannot be said to be perverse. Further, the prosecution, at the trial, miserably failed to prove accusation against respondent Nos. 2 to 6 of assault, which casts a shadow of doubt on the case of prosecution. 9. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal. 10. The appeal does not merit admission and is, accordingly, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.