ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI, J.:–Sole appellant Dinesh Choudhary @ Dinesh Chawadhary has been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years as well as fined of Rs.5,000/-, in default thereof, to undergo R. I. for two months additionally, Section 341 I.P.C. sentenced to undergo S.I. for one month, Section 504 I.P.C. sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year, under Section 27 of the Arms Act, sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years as well as to pay fine appertaining to Rs.2,000/-, in default thereof, to undergo R.I. for one month vide judgment of conviction dated 3/4th April, 2015 and order of sentence dated 10.04.2015 passed by the Sessions Judge, Buxar in Sessions Trial No.223 of 2013. 2. Munna Rai (PW-2) gave his fard-bayan at P.M.C.H. on 09.01.2013 where he was admitted before the police official disclosing therein that on 02.01.2013 at about 7.30 p.m. while he was going to purchase GUL (mouthwash item), met with Dinesh Choudhary, resident of same mohalla during midst of way, who halted him and then, began to abuse. On protest made by him, Dinesh Choudhary took out pistol and shot at. He rushed there from towards his house shouting, whereupon the neighbours came out from their respective houses and was taken to Sadar Hospital, Buxar wherefrom was referred to P.M.C.H. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid fard-bayan, Buxar P. S. Case No.09 of 2013 was registered under Sections 341, 504, 307 I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act followed with an investigation as well as submission of chargesheet, facilitating the trial which ultimately concluded in a manner, the subject matter of instant appeal. 4. Defence case, as is evident from mode of cross-examination as well as statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is that of complete denial. However, neither oral nor documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of appellant. 5. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution had examined altogether seven PWs viz. PW-1 Rani Devi, wife of PW-2 (informant/ injured), PW-2 Munna Rai (informant/ injured), PW-3 Ranju Devi, his sister, PW-4 Manju Devi, his sister, PW-5 Ishwar Sharma, a local resident, PW-6 Dr. Ravi Bhusan Srivastava, who had examined the victim at Sadar Hospital, Buxar and PW-7 Birendra Kumar Singh, the I.O. Side by side, had also exhibited the document viz. PW-1 Rani Devi, wife of PW-2 (informant/ injured), PW-2 Munna Rai (informant/ injured), PW-3 Ranju Devi, his sister, PW-4 Manju Devi, his sister, PW-5 Ishwar Sharma, a local resident, PW-6 Dr. Ravi Bhusan Srivastava, who had examined the victim at Sadar Hospital, Buxar and PW-7 Birendra Kumar Singh, the I.O. Side by side, had also exhibited the document viz. Exhibit-1 signature of Rani Devi over the fard-bayan, Exhibit-2 injury report and Exhibit-3 formal F.I.R. 6. As per evidence of PW-6, Dr. Ravi Bhusan Srivastava, PW-2 had sustained single firearm injury having dimension ½” diameter x chest cavity deep. 3” below right nipple, 1” away from mid line on right chest on front margin, inverted. There was blackening around the wound about ¾” diameter, wound was bleeding. Apart from this, there happens to be consistent version of the prosecution witnesses including that of injured himself that he sustained single shot. That being so, presence of firearm injury over the person of PW-2 goes out of controversy. 7. Now, coming to status of the ocular evidence, it is evident that at an initial stage, there was contest and PW-1 deposed on that very score claiming herself to be an eye witness to occurrence as well as identifying the appellant to be assailant of her husband, but subsequently thereof, as is evident from trend of evidence, the prosecution party might have been gained over at the end of the appellant or with some extraneous consideration shown some sort of favour and that happens to be reason behind that right from PW-3 to PW-5 did not choose to support the case of the prosecution identifying the appellant to be author of the injury, whereupon were declared hostile. PW-2, injured as well as informant himself though had categorically stated during examination-in-chief that the appellant to be author of the injury, who shot at him, but during course of cross-examination at Para-4 had stated that he identifies Dinesh Choudhary, who is in dock. He had not fired at him. That being so, now, the evidence of PW-1 is to be seen whether in the background of aforesaid infirmity whereunder the informant/ injured himself disowned to identify the appellant to be his assailant succeeded in substantiating the case. 8. PW-1 had stated that on the alleged date and time of occurrence, she was cooking. He had not fired at him. That being so, now, the evidence of PW-1 is to be seen whether in the background of aforesaid infirmity whereunder the informant/ injured himself disowned to identify the appellant to be his assailant succeeded in substantiating the case. 8. PW-1 had stated that on the alleged date and time of occurrence, she was cooking. Her husband gone out of house to purchase GUL (mouthwash item), she also followed him in order to purchase sugar from the same shop, during midst of way, her husband met with Dinesh Coudhary, who abused and on protest, shot at. Fard-bayan was recorded admittedly after seven days of the occurrence in presence of PW-1. Had there been presence of PW-1 by way of following the victim to purchase the sugar, then in that circumstance, her presence would have been in the fard-bayan itself. Apart from this, her story also happens to be suspicious one, because of the fact that in case, sugar was needed to be purchased, then in that event, she might have instructed her husband (PW-2) to bring sugar as he was going to the shop to purchase GUL (mouthwash item) That being so, her presence at the P.O. by way of following PW-2 happens to be doubtful. Apart from this, none of the PWs had stated including the doctor that PW-2 was unconscious during intermediary period and in likewise manner, on account of absence of doctor, who attended the injured at P.M.C.H., has been examined, who would have exposed the same. The most peculiar feature visualizing from the L. C. Record is that the fard-bayan was recorded by the Buxar Police coming to Patna, and the reason behind the same has not been explained by the PW-7, the I.O. That means to say, there happens to be inordinate delay in recording of fard-bayan without any plausible explanation. 9. In the aforesaid background, considering the totality of the event, appellant is found at least entitled for benefit of doubt. Consequent thereupon, the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned lower Court is set aside. Appeal is allowed. Appellant is on bail, hence is being discharged from the liability of the bail bond.