JUDGMENT : PRAKASH CHANDRA JAISWAL, J. 1. Heard learned amicus curaie for the appellant and learned APP for the State on this Criminal Appeal. 2. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction dated 04.02.2013 and order of sentence dated 07.02.2013 passed by Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge-IV, Aurangabad in Sessions Trial no. 174/1993 / 90/2010 arising out of Jamhor P.S. Case No. 34 of 1992 whereby the learned trial court acquitted the accused Naresh Singh and Pappu Singh of the charge levelled against them and convicted the accused, Suresh Singh for the offence punishable under Sections 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for ten years and also slapped him with a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for three months under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced him to undergo R.I. for three years and also slapped him with a fine of Rs.3000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for two months under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that Jamhor P.S. Case No. 34 of 1992 was instituted under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act against accused Naresh Singh, Suresh Singh and one unknown miscreant on the basis of fardbeyan of Gaya Prasad Singh S/o Suryadeo Singh recorded by A.S.I. R.P. Kushwaha of P.S. Jamhor on 01.04.1992 at 10:00 hours at P.S. compound with the allegation, in succinct that his father, namely, Suryadeo Singh had gone to pick up Mahua towards Western side of his village at 08:00 AM and from there, he had gone to meet Sumeshwar Rai along with Master Ram Padarath Ram and after that his father along with Sumeshwar Rai, Ram Padarath Ram and chowkidar of Panwat Ret was regressing to the station. As soon as he arrived near Chichami school at around 09:00 AM, he spotted Naresh Singh standing towards West armed with lathi. Spotting his father, he started slating him and gave two lathi blows to his father and on intervention of his father, he demanded pistol to eliminate him. As soon as he arrived near Chichami school at around 09:00 AM, he spotted Naresh Singh standing towards West armed with lathi. Spotting his father, he started slating him and gave two lathi blows to his father and on intervention of his father, he demanded pistol to eliminate him. In the meantime, his brother Suresh Singh and one other miscreant rushed there and encircled his father. Suresh Singh resorted two rounds of firing by means of his pistol upon his father. Responding the firing sound, he rushed there and found his father lying on the ground sustaining injuries on his both hands and his companion escaping, who later on divulged the occurrence to him. The bone of contention is said to be that on 31.03.1992. Ox of Kuwar Singh was agreed to be sold at Munshi Bigha in Rs.1750/-. Suresh Singh had demanded the same at Rs.1700/- extending threatening of tying the Ox at his door. Whereupon his father had made protest and due to aforesaid grudge, the accused persons assaulted his father by means of lathi and pistol. 4. The aforesaid case was investigated by the police and on conclusion of the investigation, I.O. submitted charge-sheet under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326, 307, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act against the accused Suresh Singh, Naresh Singh and Pappu Singh 5. On receiving the charge-sheet and the case diary and perusing the same, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the court of sessions and after commitment and on transfer finally the case came in seisin of the learned Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge-IV, Aurangabad for trial. 6. Charge against accused Suresh Singh was framed under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act while charge against accused Naresh Singh and Pappu Singh was framed under Section 307/34 of the I.P.C. Charge was read over and explained to the accused persons by the court to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. To substantiate its case, in ocular evidence, the prosecution has examined altogether eleven prosecution witnesses namely, informant Gaya Prasad Singh as PW-1, Upendra Singh as PW-2, Kuwar Singh as PW-3, Lalan Singh as PW-4, Jai Ram Ram as PW-5, Sumeshwar Rai as PW-6, Suryadeo Singh as PW-7, Dr. 7. To substantiate its case, in ocular evidence, the prosecution has examined altogether eleven prosecution witnesses namely, informant Gaya Prasad Singh as PW-1, Upendra Singh as PW-2, Kuwar Singh as PW-3, Lalan Singh as PW-4, Jai Ram Ram as PW-5, Sumeshwar Rai as PW-6, Suryadeo Singh as PW-7, Dr. Shri Ram Singh, who had examined the victim as PW-8, Shukhdeo Singh as PW-9, Vijay Singh as PW-10 and Ram Padarath Ram as PW-11. Out of the aforesaid witnesses, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6, PW-9, PW-10 and PW-11 have turned hostile. The prosecution has also filed and proved some documents by way of documentary evidence in buttress of its case. 8. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal procedure. The case of the defence is complete denial of the occurrence claiming him-self to be falsely implicated in this case. The accused has neither adduced any ocular nor documentary evidence in buttress of his case. 9. After hearing the parties and perusing the record, the learned trial court passed the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence as detailed in the earlier paragraph. 10. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the convict Suresh Singh has preferred the present Criminal Appeal. 11. The point for consideration in this case is, as to whether the prosecution has been able to bring home the charges levelled against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts or not. 12. It is submitted by learned amicus curiae for the appellant that the informant and PW-2 do not happen to be eye witness of the occurrence as they had arrived at the place of occurrence responding the firing sound and found their father lying on the ground sustaining injury. It is further submitted that only eye witness of the occurrence is the victim Suryadeo Singh and as per his account, Naresh Singh gave two lathi blows one on his leg and another on his hand while Suresh Singh resorted two rounds of firing on his both hands from the point blank range, but doctor has not found any blackening and charring mark on the wound of the injured Suryadeo Singh. Moreover, doctor has not found any injury on his leg rather one lacerated wound on his left eyebrow and three lacerated wound one each on the middle finger, ring finger of the left hand and right elbow joint. Thus, the aforesaid ocular testimony also does not stand corroborated by the medical evidence. I.O. of the case has also not been examined by the prosecution and moreover the companion of the injured, namely, Sumeshwar Rai and Ram Padarath Ram have turned hostile and have not supported the witnessing of the occurrence allegedly committed by the appellant against the injured. As per the statement of the witnesses, the informant was also being accompanied by Chowkidar of Panwat Ret and Tahsildar Bhuvneshwar Rai. But, the aforesaid Chowkidar of Panwat Ret and Tahsildar, who happen to be material witnesses of the case, have not been examined by the prosecution and no plausible and convincing reason has been assigned by the prosecution for their non-examination. Hence, adverse inference shall be drawn against it. Thus, the prosecution has utterly and miserably failed to substantiate the prosecution case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt by adducing convincing, trustworthy and reliable evidence. Hence, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant by the learned trail court is liable to be set aside and appellant is entitled to be acquitted. 13. On the other hand, learned APP advocating the correctness and validity of the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence submitted that the injured of the case has fully supported the prosecution case and PW-2 has also corroborated the aforesaid prosecution case. The ocular testimony of the prosecution has also stand corroborated by the medical evidence and learned trial court correctly appreciating the facts and evidence on record has rightly passed the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence which is liable to be upheld and this appeal is shorn of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 14. From perusal of record it appears that to substantiate its case the prosecution has examined 10 material witnesses of the case. 14. From perusal of record it appears that to substantiate its case the prosecution has examined 10 material witnesses of the case. Out of them, PW-3 Kuwar Singh, PW-4 Lalan Singh, PW-5 Jai Ram Ram, PW-6 Sumeshwar Rai, PW9 Shukhdeo Singh, PW-10 Vijay Singh and PW-11 Ram Padarath Ram have turned hostile while PW-1 Gaya Prasad Singh happens to be informant and son of injured Suryadeo Singh and PW-2 Upendra Singh is also son of the injured Suryadeo Singh and PW-7 Suryadeo Singh is the injured himself. 15. From perusal of fardbeyan of the informant and his testimony, it appears that the informant does not happen to be eye witness of the occurrence as in his fardbeyan itself he has stated that responding the firing sound when he arrived at the place of occurrence, he found his father lying on the ground sustaining injury in his both hands and in paragraph 1 of his examination-in-chief, he has also stated that at the time of occurrence, he was at his house. He listened two firing sounds. Responding the aforesaid firing sound, when he stepped out of the village, he spotted his younger brother Upendra Singh and father Suryadeo Singh proceeding towards village followed by Naresh Singh, Suresh Singh and Pappu Singh. When his father came closed to him, he found his left hand drenched with the blood and on quizzing his father, told him to divulge the occurrence on arrival at the house. They rushed to the P.S. from there. On the way his father divulged him that Suresh Singh had resorted firing upon him. In paragraph 10 of his cross-examination, he has further stated that in his fardbeyan and further statement, he had divulged that when his father came closed to him, he witnessed his left hand drenched with the blood. In paragraph 11 of his cross-examination, he has further stated that he had also divulged to the police that on the way, his father had divulged him that Suresh Singh had resorted firing upon him inflicting bleeding injury in his hand and Naresh Singh had given one lathi blow to him. Likewise, PW-2 Upendra Singh also does not happen to be eye witness of the occurrence as in paragraph 1 of his examination-in-chief itself, he has stated that at the time of occurrence, he was at his house. Likewise, PW-2 Upendra Singh also does not happen to be eye witness of the occurrence as in paragraph 1 of his examination-in-chief itself, he has stated that at the time of occurrence, he was at his house. He listened two firing sounds of the pistol from West of his Village. Responding firing sound, he rushed there and found his father drenched with the blood. In paragraph 15 of his cross-examination, he has further stated that he had divulged to the police that when he stepped out of his village, he found his father drenched with the blood. Even as hearsay witnesses, their statement is not admissible in evidence. As per the fardbeyan, the informant got knowledge of the occurrence from the companion of his father, namely, Sumeshwar Rai, Ram Padarath Ram and chowkidar of Panwat Ret, who had escaped at the time of occurrence and later on divulged the occurrence to him. But, said Ram Padarath Ram examined in the case as PW-11 and Sumeshwar Rai examined in the case as PW-6 have turned hostile and also not corroborated the factum of divulgence of the aforesaid occurrence by them to the informant and chowkidar Panwat Ret has not been examined by the prosecution. Moreover, in quite contradiction to the aforesaid fardbeyan, informant PW-1 has stated in paragraph 1 of his examination-in-chief that his father had divulged on the way to the P.S. that Suresh Singh resorted firing upon him and Naresh Singh gave lathi blow to him and PW-2 Upendra Singh has stated in paragraph 8 of his cross- examination that after departure of the accused persons to their house, his father divulged the occurrence to the villagers and he overheard the aforesaid occurrence from his father. But their father, namely, Suryadeo Singh examined in the case as PW-7, has not corroborated the factum of divulgence of the occurrence either to them or the villager. Thus, the aforesaid statement of informant PW-1 and PW-2 Upendra Singh remains uncorroborated and the said uncorroborated statement of said hearsay witnesses is not admissible in the evidence. 16. From perusal of testimony of Suryadeo Singh PW-7, it appears that in his examination-in-chief, he has stated that Naresh Singh gave two lathi blows to him one on his leg and another on his hand while Suresh Singh resorted two rounds of firing, both firing hit on his left hand. 16. From perusal of testimony of Suryadeo Singh PW-7, it appears that in his examination-in-chief, he has stated that Naresh Singh gave two lathi blows to him one on his leg and another on his hand while Suresh Singh resorted two rounds of firing, both firing hit on his left hand. But, in quite contradiction to the aforesaid statement of PW-7, PW-1 has stated in paragraph 1 of his examination-in-chief that on the way his father divulged him that Suresh Singh resorted firing upon him while Naresh Singh gave one lathi blow to him. In paragraph 11 of his cross-examination, he has further stated that he divulged to the police that his father divulged him that his left hand was injured in the firing made by Suresh Singh while Naresh Singh gave one lathi blow to him. PW-7 has stated in paragraph 12 of his cross-examination that Naresh Singh gave two lathi blows, one on the leg and another on the hand. In paragraph 13 of his cross-examination, he has further stated that Suresh Singh resorted firing upon him from point blank range, but from perusal of the injury report and testimony of doctor Shri Ram Singh, it appears that doctor has not found any injury on the leg of the injured rather has found three lacerated injuries on the hands and one lacerated injury on the left eyebrow caused by hard and blunt substance besides two firearm injuries on left hand. 17. From perusal of the aforesaid injury report of the doctor, it appears that doctor has found one lacerated wound of “ in diameter with inverted margin and bone deep situated on lateral surface of left elbow joint and one lacerated wound of “ in diameter and bone deep with inverted margin situated between index and middle finger of left hand. But, the doctor has not reported about finding of any charring or blackening mark around the aforesaid wounds while as per the statement of PW-7 Suryadeo Singh, accused Suresh Singh had resorted firing upon him from point blank range. But, the doctor has not reported about finding of any charring or blackening mark around the aforesaid wounds while as per the statement of PW-7 Suryadeo Singh, accused Suresh Singh had resorted firing upon him from point blank range. As per MODI's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, if a firearm is discharged very close to the body or in actual contact, subcutaneous tissues over an area of two or three inches around the wound of entrance are lacerated and the surrounding skin is usually scorched and blackened by smoke and tattooed with unburnt grains of gunpowder or smokeless propellant powder. The adjacent hairs are signed, and the clothes covering the part are burnt by the flame. If the powder is smokeless, there may be a greyish or white deposit on the skin around the wound. But, the doctor has not found any charring or blackening mark or tattoo etc. on the aforesaid wound caused by firearm. Hence, the aforesaid contradictory ocular evidence of the prosecution does not stand corroborated by the medical evidence. 18. From perusal of record, it appears that PW-7 happens to be injured of the case while PW-1 informant and PW-2 are sons of the injured and they are interested witnesses of the case. As per the prosecution case as adumbrated in the fardbeyan Sumeshwar Rai and Master Ram Padarath Ram and chowkidar of Panwat Ret were accompanying the injured at the time of occurrence. PW-2 Upendra Singh has stated in paragraph 2 of his examination-in-chief that on quizzing his father, he divulged him that Tahsildar Bhuvneshwar Rai of Nahar was also with him at the time of occurrence and they were proceeding towards the station. But, the aforesaid Ram Padarath Ram and Someshwar Ram have turned hostile while Tahsildar Bhuvneshwar Rai and chowkidar of Panwat Ret have not been examined by the prosecution and no plausible and convincing reason has been assigned by the prosecution for their non-examination. Hence, adverse inference is drawn against it. Thus, inconsistent and contradictory testimony of the interested witnesses of the case does not stand corroborated by any independent witness of the occurrence. 19. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I find and hold that the prosecution has utterly and miserably failed to bring home the charge levelled against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts by adducing convincing, cogent, consistent and worth credence evidence. 19. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I find and hold that the prosecution has utterly and miserably failed to bring home the charge levelled against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts by adducing convincing, cogent, consistent and worth credence evidence. Hence, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by learned trial court against the appellant is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. As the appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of the bail bonds. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. 20. Let a copy of the first and last page of this judgment be handed over to the learned amicus curiae, Mr. Ranbir Singh, learned amicus curiae be paid prescribed fee by the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee.