JUDGMENT : Kishore Kumar Mandal, J. The present appeal filed on behalf of the sole appellant is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 18.02.2011 and order of sentence dated 23.02.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. III, Rohtas at Sasaram, in Sessions Trial no. 316 of 2009, arising out of Barhari P.S. case no. 72 of 2009, whereby the sole appellant was held guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the I.P.C.’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (for short ‘the R.I.’) for life besides fine of Rs. 5,000 (Five thousand) with default clause. He was also adjudged guilty under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 07 years with imposition of fine in the sum of Rs. 1000/- (One thousand) with default clause. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case as unfolded in the ‘fardbeyan’ (Exhibit-2) lodged by the father of the victim, namely, Sheo Narayan Ram (PW-10), in brief, is that on 31.05.2009, at about 7 A.M., while he was going to obtain loan from the co-villager, it was revealed to him by the mother of Nathuni Sharma that his son (deceased) was shot by the appellant at his ‘darwaja’ whereafter the informant proceeded to the ‘darwaja’ where few people had already congregated. He found his son lying on ‘darwaja’ and yelling having received gun shot injury on his face near the nose. Along with his father (PW-10), cousin brother (PW-3) and one Dilip Ram (not examined) the injured was carried to the hospital but on the way he succumbed to the injuries whereafter all of them went to the police station and lodged the ‘fardbeyan’ (Exhibit-2) on 31.5.2009 at 11.30 A.M. which gave rise to a formal First Informant Report (for short ‘the F.I.R’) (Exhibit-4). The Station House Officer after recording the F.I.R. took up the investigation in course whereof the inquest over the cadaver was carried out and a report (Exhibit-3) was prepared whereafter the dead body was dispatched for post-mortem examination. The Station House Officer after recording the F.I.R. took up the investigation in course whereof the inquest over the cadaver was carried out and a report (Exhibit-3) was prepared whereafter the dead body was dispatched for post-mortem examination. PW-7 conducted the autopsy on the cadaver and found ante mortem lacerated wound with tethered inverted margin 2” x 1” x mouth cavity deep over left side of nose fracturing and puncturing left maxillary bone, Ala of left side nose and upper lip up to philtrum lacerated and whole face and forehead covered with blackened dots. Having found the aforesaid, the doctor opined the cause of death as hemorrhage and shock due to these injuries caused by fire arm. The post-mortem report submitted by the doctor is Exhibit-1. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses, including the mother of deceased, namely, Savita Devi (PW-1), the maternal-brother of the informant, namely, Baran Ram (PW-2), the cousin brother of the informant, namely, Vijay Kumar (PW-3) and the informant (PW-10) besides statements of some other witnesses. Having found the case true he submitted the charge-sheet against the appellant which gave rise to the present Sessions Trial on the file of the learned Trial Court. Charges were framed to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and hence the trial. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove the charge, examined altogether 12 witnesses besides placing on record the documentary evidence (exhibits). On an appreciation of the evidence placed on record, the learned Trial Court found the evidence of the mother of the deceased (PW-1), the informant (PW-10) and the doctor (PW-7) had fully supported the prosecution case and opined that the charges were proved beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts. The learned Trial Court, however, found that it was a case where there was no eye-witness to the occurrence yet the chain of circumstances established at the trial by the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts and convicted the appellant in the manner noted above. 4. Learned amicus curiae after placing relevant evidence has submitted that it is a case in which, indisputably, there is no eye-witness to the occurrence inasmuch as no independent witness has been produced by the prosecution to prove the prosecution case spelt out in the ‘fardbeyan’ and developed at the trial beyond the periphery of reasonable doubts. 4. Learned amicus curiae after placing relevant evidence has submitted that it is a case in which, indisputably, there is no eye-witness to the occurrence inasmuch as no independent witness has been produced by the prosecution to prove the prosecution case spelt out in the ‘fardbeyan’ and developed at the trial beyond the periphery of reasonable doubts. The genesis of the occurrence which is stated in the ‘farbeyan’ and also by the PW-1 has not been proved as the other relevant evidence, including her husband (PW-10) and the IO (PW-11) have completely contradicted her deposition on the said point. He further submits that all witnesses are close relatives and, therefore, the Court should not place reliance on their evidence. Even according to the learned Trial Court it was a case based on circumstantial evidence. On the basis of the proved facts at the trial, the chain of circumstances are not complete and do not firmly establish the guilt of the appellant. In his submissions, conviction of the appellant is not sustainable in law on the basis of the evidence on record. In this regard, he has placed, in extenso, the evidence of PWs-1, 2, 3, 10 and 11. 5. Mr. Mishra, conversely, submits that the case propounded by the prosecution has been proved to the hilt by the evidence of PWs-1, 2, 3, 7 (Doctor) as well as the informant (PW-10). From the evidence on record, it is manifest that the injured was found yelling at the ‘darwaja’ of the appellant after having received gun shot injury in his face near the nose. The witnesses have stated that the PW-6 immediately arrived and entered into the house of the appellant and snatched the pistol (weapon of assault) from the hands of the appellant whereafter the appellant escaped therefrom. The presence of the injured at the ‘darwaja’ in the light of the evidence of PW-1 is proved. The victim while playing went near the ‘darwaja’ of the appellant whereafter fire was shot at him. It was the appellant alone who was responsible for causing the gun shot injury to the victim which ultimately proved fatal. The evidence of PW-7 would show that it was a case of homicide. The victim having received the gun shot injury on his face died due to shock and hemorrhage caused by the injury. 6. It was the appellant alone who was responsible for causing the gun shot injury to the victim which ultimately proved fatal. The evidence of PW-7 would show that it was a case of homicide. The victim having received the gun shot injury on his face died due to shock and hemorrhage caused by the injury. 6. We have considered the submissions made by the parties and carefully perused the materials on record. Even according to the prosecution case built up at the trial which has been accepted by the learned Trial Court there is no eye-witness to the occurrence. The counsel for the appellant has also submitted that this is a case based on circumstantial evidence. The death of the boy upon receiving fire arm injury on the alleged date and time of occurrence is not much in dispute. The evidence of the doctor (PW-7) prove the death was homicidal. The question which the Court is now obliged to consider whether every link of the chain of circumstances proved by the prosecution complete the chain showing only and only the guilt of the accused. The law in this regard is settled beyond cavil. We thus refrain ourselves from embellishing the judgment on this legal aspect. Having said so, we shall now scan the relevant evidence on record produced by the prosecution. The evidence of PWs-4, 5, 8 and 9 are not much relevant on the point as they are either formal witness or declared hostile by the prosecution. Curiously enough, the prosecution has also given a go-by to the evidence of PW-6 who is none else but the grandfather of the victim and cited as a witness to the occurrence in the ‘fardbeyan’ inasmuch as he is also a witness to the recording of the FIR as per the evidence of the informant (PW-10). According to the ‘fardbeyan’ and the prosecution case developed at the trial he was one who immediately reached the place of occurrence on hearing the sound of gun shot scuffled with the appellant who was present in the room and snatched the country made pistol from his hand. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed the evidence of PW-6 wherefrom it is seen that this witness has categorically denied the aforesaid factum. His deposition was the substantive piece of evidence to establish the aforesaid factum. The prosecution has also not relied on his evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed the evidence of PW-6 wherefrom it is seen that this witness has categorically denied the aforesaid factum. His deposition was the substantive piece of evidence to establish the aforesaid factum. The prosecution has also not relied on his evidence. Thus, the important circumstances which could have shown or established the presence of the appellant with the country made pistol inside the house on the relevant date and time of the occurrence has not been firmly proved by the prosecution. 7. We are mindful of the fact that the genesis or motive for the occurrence has been disclosed by the prosecution in the first version i.e. FIR in which it has been alleged by the informant (PW-10) that few days prior to the occurrence, there was some scuffle between the children, as a result whereof, the appellant had threatened the family members of the deceased with dire consequences. We also find from the evidence of PW-2 at para-8 that both the parties are neighbours residing in front of each other. At this stage, it is noticed that the defence of the appellant from the very beginning is that the children were playing with country made pistol and in the process, the fire was shot by mistake which caused the death of the minor boy of the informant. The appellant, while denying the charges and abjuring the guilt, in his statement made under Section 313 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure has specifically said so. The I.O., in his deposition, has stated that the independent witnesses examined by him narrated about the said story while describing the manner in which the victim received gun shot injury at the ‘darwaja’ of the appellant. Although the prosecution in all cases is not obliged to prove the genesis of the occurrence if other evidence produced by them satisfy the Court but in a case where such motive has been embedded in the first version of the prosecution case, the Court would expect the prosecution to adduce evidence at the trial in support thereof. Failure to do so will be considered as an adverse circumstances against the prosecution. Turning to the evidence of informant (PW-10), it is seen that he too denied the same. Failure to do so will be considered as an adverse circumstances against the prosecution. Turning to the evidence of informant (PW-10), it is seen that he too denied the same. On scanning the entire evidence of informant, we find that the prosecution case as put up during the trial has not only been supported by him but, in fact, materially contradicted by him. The motive as alleged by the prosecution has not been stated by the informant. It has been urged on behalf of the appellant that on the basis of the evidence produced by the prosecution each and every chain of the circumstances proving the guilt of the appellant has not been firmly established by the prosecution. 8. One of the vital fact to establish the complete chain of the circumstances was to prove by substantive evidence the charge that the appellant was present in the house with the country made pistol at the time of occurrence with the weapon of assault which was snatched by the grandfather (PW-6) who was amongst the first to arrive at the place of the occurrence after hearing the sound of gun firing. As noticed above, prosecution has failed to establish the aforesaid factum with convincing evidence. Adverting again to the evidence of the informant (PW-10) it is found that he himself has stated in course of cross-examination that there was no quarrel between the family of the appellant and the informant. He goes on further to state that the fire was shot accidentally in a quarrel between the children playing in front of the house of the informant which is also the front portion of the house of the appellant. According to his testimony, he reached the place of occurrence without loss of much time. He has, however, stated that he did not see anyone snatching country made pistol from the hands of the appellant. The Court, on careful appraisal of the evidence on record, has no manner of doubt that the prosecution has not firmly established the chain of circumstances showing the guilt and only guilt of the appellant. Judged on the conspectus of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. Judged on the conspectus of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. The conviction recorded against him by the learned Trial Court is set aside and appeal is allowed. 9. From perusal of the records, it appears that the appellant, upon his conviction, continues in jail custody as his prayer for bail was refused by this Court. Let the appellant be set at liberty, if not required in connection with any other case.