JUDGMENT : Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed by the complainant Siyaram Meena to assail the impugned judgment dated 13.9.2012 rendered by the court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Dholpur, whereby the said court recorded the acquittal the accused-respondent Hariya @ Hari Singh son of Moharu for the offences under Sections 148, 302/149 IPC and Section 3(2) (v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. Siyaram Meena (P.W.1) in the written report filed had specifically named Ramveer, Kamal Singh and Samunder Singh as accused. In the written report, he has also stated that above said three persons were accompanied by three to four persons. 3. We may notice here that Siyaram Meena (P.W.1) on 30.07.2006 at 7:05 AM at Community Health Center Bari, had presented a written report before Prem Bahadur Singh (not examined), who was then posted as SHO, Police Station Sarmathura. 4. On 30.7.2006, Prem Bahadur Singh was posted as SHO, Police Station Sarmathura and he on the said date, received an information that one Girraj Meena has been murdered and his dead body has been brought to the Community Health Center, Bari. Upon receipt of the information, Prem Bahadur Singh reached at the Community Health Center, Bari. At Community Health Center, Bari, the complainant Siyaram (P.W.1) presented written report. 5. We may notice here that Siyaram (P.W.1) in the present case submitted a typed written report. The said typed written report, when translated into English, reads as under:- To, SHO Police Station Sarmathura, Subject :- lodging of the report. Sir, it is submitted that the applicant is resident of Village Kachhpura, Police Station, Sarmathura. Applicant was present in his mining plot No. 8 in the revenue jurisdiction of Tarwa. In the evening of 29.07.2006 at about 06:00 PM, Girraj aged 25 years son of the applicant was present along with 30 to 40 persons. At that time Dacoit Samunder Singh son of Patiram Gurjar resident of Birja Thana, Sarmathura, Ramveer resident of Bairpura, Thana Basedi and Kamal Moroli, Thana Dang Basai and 3 to 4 other persons armed with guns came. Immediately on arrival, they said that they are members of Prakash and Hariya gang. They declared that mining activity be stopped. When the complainant refused to do so, then Kamal Dacoit fired a shot upon Girraj. The said shot hit him on the hand. Immediately on arrival, they said that they are members of Prakash and Hariya gang. They declared that mining activity be stopped. When the complainant refused to do so, then Kamal Dacoit fired a shot upon Girraj. The said shot hit him on the hand. Second shot was fired by Ramveer which directly hit in the chest. Due to shots fired Girraj son of the applicant died at the spot. The occurrence was witnessed by the applicant, Lakhan, Jeetu, and other persons. Other persons who were standing there had also witnessed the occurrence. All Dacoits after firing the shots had left the spot. Therefore, sir, it is requested that after registration of the case assailants be arrested and legal action be taken against them and they be got punished. Date: 30.7.2006 Sd/- Siyaram s/o Kishanlal Meena By caste Meena, r/o Village Kachhpura, Police Station Sarmathura, Tehsil Bari." 6. During the course of arguments, it is not denied that the written report was typed copy, hence, it cannot be ruled out that the same was submitted after consultations and deliberations. We find that in the FIR even though accused have been named as Dacoit, the investigating agency has not submitted the charge sheet under any of the provisions pertaining to robbery and dacoity. The trial court had also not formulated the charge of dacoity. A perusal of the order framing charges by the trial court also reveals that the accused persons were charged for the offences under Sections 148, 302/149, 302 IPC and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. Therefore, even though the complainant had described the accused as Dacoit, no investigation was carried to this effect. Even the provisions of Dacoity Affected Area Act, have not been invoked. The only reason for the accused to go to the spot which has surfaced during the case of the prosecution is that the accused intended Siyaram to close his mining activity. In the written report only three persons have been named, i.e. Samundar Singh, Kamal Singh and Ramveer. 7. We are informed that during the interrogation, the investigating agency, came to the conclusion that 3 to 4 unnamed persons named in the written report leading to registration of FIR bearing No. 224/2006 registered at Police Station Sarmathura, were Hariya @ Hari Singh, Lakhan, Uddal and Bhura. In the present case, the investigating agency had not resorted to the provision of Section 299 Cr. In the present case, the investigating agency had not resorted to the provision of Section 299 Cr. P.C., but had submitted piecemeal charge-sheets against accused persons, as and when they were apprehended. First charge-sheet was submitted against the co-accused Ramveer. He was tried in Sessions Case No. 17/2007 and he was convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated 05.11.2008. 8. The accused Kamal Singh, who was named in the FIR and allegedly fired a shot, during the investigation was declared proclaimed offender, we are informed by the learned counsel for the parties that during the pendency of the appeal, Kamal Singh has died. 9. The co-accused Samundar Singh who was another person named in the FIR was tried in Sessions Case No. 21/2009 and the Court of Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Dholpur, vide impugned judgment dated 23.04.2010 convicted him for offences under Sections 148, 302/149 IPC. However, he was acquitted of offence under Section 3(2) (v) of SC/ST Act. 10. Aggrieved against his conviction and sentence, the accused Samundar Singh has filed the appeal bearing D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 347/2010. 11. Another co-accused Lakhan Singh not named in the FIR was subsequently apprehended. He was tried by the court Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Dholpur, in Sessions Case No. 35/2008. The said court on 23.01.2009 recorded acquittal of Lakhan Singh. The judgment dated 23.01.2009 has been assailed by the State of Rajasthan by filing D.B. Criminal Leave to Appeal No. 124/2011. Siyaram the complainant has filed D.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 690/2009 to assail the acquittal of Lakhan Singh for offences under Sections 148, 302/149 IPC and 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act. 12. Uddal, who had absconded also was apprehended later. He was also tried by the court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases in Sessions Case No. 01/2015. The said court vide impugned judgment dated 04.10.2016 held Uddal guilty of offences under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC. 13. In the written report leading to registration of FIR, it has been specifically stated that two shots were fired, one by Kamal and another by Ramveer, resulting into death of Girraj son of the complainant Siyaram (P.W.1). Girraj as a result of firearm injuries, died at the spot. His dead body was brought to the Community Health Center, Bari. 14. Dr. Girraj as a result of firearm injuries, died at the spot. His dead body was brought to the Community Health Center, Bari. 14. Dr. Rajesh Mittal (P.W.4) on 30.07.2006 at 08:00 AM had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Girraj. In the Post Mortem Report Dr. Rajesh Mittal had noted following injuries:- (1) Entrance wound 6x6 cm, through and through, bone fragmented and muscles fragmented at right arm at level or just elbow. (2) Entrance wound 6x6 cm at right side, the level or just below at chest post -axillary line which goes medially towards sic. (i) Right humerous bone fragmented. (ii) 7th and 8th Rib right side fragmented. 15. A perusal of both the injuries reveals that there are two entrance wounds. Thus it is proved from the medical evidence that two shots were fired in the occurrence. In the post Mortem Report, it is noted that five pieces of fragmented bullet were found inside the body. We also find that the right humorous bone and 7th and 8th rib of right side due to impact of shots fired, were fragmented. As per opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was bleeding and shock due to injuries caused to vital organ by firearm. 16. In the present case to secure conviction of the accused persons, prosecution has relied upon evidence of four eye witnesses namely Siyaram (P.W.1), Jitendra (P.W.3), Lakhan Singh (P.W.5) and Radhesyam (P.W.7). 17. Siyaram (P.W.1) in the court deposed that on the date of occurrence at 06:00 PM, he was present at mining plot No. 8, which is situated in Tarwa. His son Girraj was also present there. Samundar Singh, Ramveer and Kamal and three and four other persons came there. They all were having guns. They encircled and gave abuses in the name of mother and sister. They said that they belong to Prakash and Hariya Gang, therefore, mines be closed immediately. Thereafter Ramveer had fired a shot at Girraj. The said shot hit in the chest of Girraj. The second shot was fired by Kamal. The said shot hit in the right hand. This witness stated that besides him, the occurrence was witnessed by Lakhan Singh (P.W.5), Jitendra (P.W.3) and Radheshyam (P.W.7). 18. Siyaram (P.W.1) further stated that he had lodged the report on the next day. This witness denied the suggestion that his son was having friendship with Hari and Uddal. The said shot hit in the right hand. This witness stated that besides him, the occurrence was witnessed by Lakhan Singh (P.W.5), Jitendra (P.W.3) and Radheshyam (P.W.7). 18. Siyaram (P.W.1) further stated that he had lodged the report on the next day. This witness denied the suggestion that his son was having friendship with Hari and Uddal. This witness further denied that Samunder Singh, as the accused had lodged the report against the witness Siyaram for theft of a goat. 19. Lakhan Singh (P.W.5) deposed in the court that on 29.7.2006, he had gone to the mine of Siyaram (P.W.1) contractor. At that time, Siyaram, Girraj, Jitendra and Radheyshyam were present. In the evening at about 5:30 PM, seven to eight persons came armed with guns. The said persons included Ramveer, Kamal Singh Gurjar and Samunder Singh. The said persons were known to him. Samunder Singh had given a threat that mine be stopped. Siyaram (P.W.1) raised a protest. Then Kamal Singh fired a shot on Girraj son of Siyaram. The co-accused Ramveer fired another shot on the chest of Girraj. Samunder Singh was also armed with gun. To similar effect is statement of Jitendra (P.W.3). 20. Radhesyam (P.W.7) has also supported the case of the prosecution. 21. Badri Prasad (P.W.6) has stated that after hearing noise of firing of shot, he reached at the spot and he saw that Hari Singh, Uddal and Lakhan etc were running away. They all were armed with guns. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 22. The trial Judge specifically noted the contentions of the defence counsel that in the written report, accused respondent Hariya @ Hari Singh was not named. The names of other three to four people were not recorded. The court further held that had they been seen by the witnesses, along with Kamal Singh and Ramveer, they would have specifically named him, in the FIR. The court further noted the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the accused respondent Hariya @ Hari Singh that Siyaram (P.W.1) admitted that he had not identified Hariya @ Hari Singh at the place of occurrence and his name was told to him by Badri Prasad (P.W.6) and Babu Lal (P.W.8). 23. The court further noted the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the accused respondent Hariya @ Hari Singh that Siyaram (P.W.1) admitted that he had not identified Hariya @ Hari Singh at the place of occurrence and his name was told to him by Badri Prasad (P.W.6) and Babu Lal (P.W.8). 23. The trial court noticed that Badri Prasad (P.W.6) in the court stated that when the accused ran away from the spot, he could not identify Hariya @ Hari Singh. The trial Judge noted that in the written report, Siyaram Meena (P.W.1) had not named Hariya @ Hari Singh as accused. The trial Judge in Para 34 of the judgment had recorded nine reasons to come to conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the identity of the accused-respondent Hariya @ Hari Singh as the one who had participated in the occurrence. The trial Judge in Para 34 of the judgment had recorded nine reasons to come to conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the identity of the accused-respondent Hariya @ Hari Singh as the one who had participated in the occurrence. We shall reproduce sub-para 6 and 7 of Para 34 of the impugned judgment, as under:- 6- bl xokg us ;g Hkh dgk gS fd gjhflag dk uke mls cnzh o ckcwyky us crk;k Fkk ijUrq ftjg esa ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd ?kVuk ds le; cnzh o ckcwyky ekSds ij ekStwn ugha Fks cfYd 10 fefuV ckn ekSds ij vk;s Fks tc rd eqyfteku ekSds ls Hkkx pqds FksA bl izdkj ls esjss er esa xokg cnzh ihŒMCY;wŒ 6 o ihŒMCY;wŒ 7 jk/ks';ke ds dFku Hkh lafnX/k gks tkrs gSaA mYys[kuh; gS fd mu nksuksa xokgku ds c;ku vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh }kjk ?kVuk ds yxHkx 25 fnu mijkar fyfic) fd;s gSa ftl nsjh dk dksbZ dkj.k vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh n'kjFk flag ihŒMCY;wŒ 11 ugha crk lds gSaA ;g ugha vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh us ftjg esa Lohdkj fd;k gS fd rgjhj fjiksVZ izn'kZ ihŒ 6 esa Hkh ckcwyky o cnzhizlkn dks p'enhn lkFkh ds :i esa uketn ugha fd;k gSA ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd cnzhizlkn ifjoknh dk lxk HkkbZ gS ftlds fgrc) gksus dh lEHkkouk ls badkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA vr% bu nksuksa xokgku dh oDr ?kVuk ?kVukLFky ij mifLFkr Li"V :i ls lafnX/k gS ftl dkj.k ls muds c;kuksa ds vk/kkj ij vfHk;qDr dk vU; lg&vfHkqDrx.k ds lkFk gksuk lansg ls ijs izekf.kr gksuk ugha ekuk tk ldrk gSA 7- blh izdkj ls xokg ckcwyky ihŒMCY;wŒ 8 us ;|fi vius eq[; ijh{k.k esa vfHk;qDr gfjflag dks ekSds ls Hkkxrs gq, ns[kus dk c;ku fn;s gS ijUrq ftjg esa dgk gS fd e`rd fxjht dks ysdj og vLirky ugha x;k Fkk] mlus iqfyl dks Hkh lwpuk ugha nh Fkh] og ?kj ij gh jg x;k FkkA iqfyl us tsy esa Hkh mlls vfHk;qDr dh dksbZ f'kuk[rxh dk;Zokgh ugha djk;h FkhA mlus fdlh dks xksyh pykrs gq, ugha ns[kk FkkA og lqcg ;k 'kke dks vLirky ugha x;k FkkA cnzh vLirky dc x;k bldh mls tkudkjh ugha gSA mlus iqfyl dks 24&25 fnu ckn c;ku fn;s FksA bl izdkj bl xokg ds mijksDr c;kuksa ls mlds }kjk ?kVuk dks viuh vka[kksa ls ns[kuk vFkok ?kVuk ds le; mldk ?kVuk LFky ds vkl&ikl gksuk lafnX/k gSA ;fn okLro esa mlus ?kVuk ns[kh gksrh vkSj vfHk;qDrx.k dks igpku fy;k gksrk rks og ?kVuk ds rqjUr i'pkr~ vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh dks c;ku nsrk vFkok vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh mldk c;ku fyfic) djrkA 24. We are of the view that the reasoning propounded by the trial Judge that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the identity of the accused respondent Hariya @ Hari Singh as the one, who had participated in the occurrence is just and no fault can be found with the same. 25. From the perusal of the impugned judgment, it is discernible that Siyaram (P.W.1) in the written report, leading to registration of FIR, has not named the accused respondent Hariya @ Hari Singh. Siyaram (P.W.1) has specifically admitted that the accused respondent Hariya @ Hari Singh was not known to him and his name was relayed to him by Badri Prasad (P.W.6) and Babu Lal (P.W.8). Badri Prasad (P.W.6) and Babu Lal (P.W.8) had arrived at the spot before the submission of the written report. 26. From the perusal of the above written report, it is apparent that the occurrence had taken place on 29.07.2006 at 06:00 PM. The written report was presented on 30.07.2006 at 7:05 AM. The case was registered at Police Station Sarmathura on 30.07.2006 at 08:15 AM. The special report reached Illaqa Magistrate on 31.07.2006. 27. The very fact that the name of the accused respondent Hariya @ Hari Singh was not mentioned in the written report, which was submitted after twelve hours of the occurrence, even though, the witnesses who had relayed the name, were present along with the complainant before submission of written report. We find that the trial Judge has rightly granted benefit of doubt to the accused respondent Hariya @ Hari Singh. 28. The view formulated by the trial court is the one view, which is possible in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, no interference is warranted. 29. Consequently, D.B. Criminal Appeal No.908/2012 filed by the complainant Siyaram Meena, to assail the acquittal of accused respondent Hariya @ Hari Singh, calls for no interference and is dismissed, being devoid of merits.