JUDGMENT : 1. Appellants have preferred these appeals against the judgment and order dated 19.02.2014, passed by Special Judge (Sati Niwaran) Rajasthan & Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Sessions Case No.36/2010, whereby, Court has convicted the appellant-Kamlesh for offence under Section 307 IPC and 3/25 of Arms Act and has convicted accused-appellants-Shrikant and Anjana Devi for offence under Section 307/120-B IPC and has sentenced Kamlesh for ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- and on non payment of fine to further undergo six months simple imprisonment for offence under Section 307 IPC and with rigorous imprisonment to one year and fine of Rs.1,000/- and on non payment to further undergo three months simple imprisonment for offence under Section 3/25 of Arms Act. Court has sentenced appellants Shrikant and Anjana Devi for ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- and on non payment of fine to further undergo six months simple imprisonment for offence under Section 307/201B IPC, aggrieved by which the present appeals have been preferred. 2. In brief, factual matrix of the case are that the injured Harish Chandra was travelling from Agra to Jaipur by Hawrah Express. He boarded the train at Agra on 30.12.2009. In the midnight at around 12:00 PM someone fired and gun shot injury was sustained by the injured. F.I.R. to this effect was filed on 31.12.2009, by Naveen Chandra, brother of the injured. 3. Police on the basis of call details and mobile locations filed charge-sheet against the appellants. Court after hearing the charge arguments charged Kamlesh for offence under Section 307 IPC and 3/25 of Arms Act and appellants Shrikant and Anjana Devi for offence under Section 307/120-B IPC. Appellants denied the charges and sought trial, upon which as many as fifty three witnesses were examined and forty eight documents were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution. Appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Appellant-Anjana Verma appeared as defence witness, as many as thirty two documents were exhibited in defence. 4. Learned trial Court after hearing the arguments convicted the appellants as herein above mentioned, aggrieved by which the present appeals have been preferred. 5. It is contended by counsel for the appellants that the case rests on circumstantial evidence. It has come in evidence that there was darkness in the train and no one saw the assailants. 4. Learned trial Court after hearing the arguments convicted the appellants as herein above mentioned, aggrieved by which the present appeals have been preferred. 5. It is contended by counsel for the appellants that the case rests on circumstantial evidence. It has come in evidence that there was darkness in the train and no one saw the assailants. It is also contended that the allegation is of causing gun shot injury but no bullet was found in the body of the injured. The firearm which was recovered from the appellant-Kamlesh on 28.04.2010 vide Ex.P-8, was recently fired is not established. 6. It is also contended that initially the investigation was conducted by Karan Singh PW-45 who has admitted in his crossexamination that till 27.03.2010, accused were not identified. It is further contended that call details on the basis of which Court has arrived at the finding of guilt is not admissible in evidence as the letter with which this document was sent to the Investigation Officer does not bear the signatures of the Superintendent of Police. Service provider has not been examined to establish that the same was issued by the service provider. 7. It is also contended that the injured was travelling in reserve compartment in S-3. His reservation was on berth No.S-60. He had mutually changed his berth with other traverller who was travelling in berth No.S-61. It is argued that police has not investigated from the person who was travelling in berth No.S-61 regarding the incident and whether he was having any enmity with any person. It is argued that basing conviction solely on mobile call location is bad in law as the accused appellant Anjana, as per the statement of father and cousin of the injured was not keeping any mobile. 8. It is also contended that in the injury report, brief description of the incident is mentioned as alleged history of assault on 30.12.2009 at 12:15 AM in Hawrah Express near Bandikui as stated by injured, the injured did not say that someone had fired at him. 8. It is also contended that in the injury report, brief description of the incident is mentioned as alleged history of assault on 30.12.2009 at 12:15 AM in Hawrah Express near Bandikui as stated by injured, the injured did not say that someone had fired at him. It is also contended that in the injury report, Ex.P-6 the description of injury is mentioned as “Postoperative dressing on left lower abdomen from the hypochondriac to illiac region upto midline with complaint of pain and tenderness.” It is also contended that operative notes have not been produced by the prosecution and no foreign body was found in the X-ray report. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant have opposed the appeals. Their contention is that immediately after gun shot injury were sustained by the injured, he suspected that his wife and brother-in-law were involved. It is also contended that from the mobile location, it is revealed that all the accused persons were at Bandikui during the relevant time. It is also contended that from the call details, it is revealed that appellant Anjaja on the fateful night had a talk with Shrikant and Shrikant had a talk with Kamlesh which goes to show that the accused were conniving to eliminate the injured as there was matrimonial dispute between the injured and Anjana. It is also contended that firearm has been recovered from Kamlesh which was in a serviceable condition and Court below has considered the entire evidence on record and passed reason judgment. It is also contended that in the explanation given under Section 313 Cr.P.C., appellants have not given any explanation with regard to their presence at Bandikui on the fateful night. 10. I have considered the contentions. 11. The fact of injured boarding the train from Agra and some incident taking place at Bandikui is not disputed. The fact that the person who caused the injury was not identified on the spot is also not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the Investigation Officer Karan Singh PW-45 could not crack the case till 27.03.2010 and only after second Investigation Officer PW-49 Sachin Sharma was deputed, he on the basis of mobile location submitted chargesheet against the appellants. 12. Present case is based on circumstantial evidence as no one has seen the person who has caused injury to the injured. 12. Present case is based on circumstantial evidence as no one has seen the person who has caused injury to the injured. It is not disputed that Anjana was not in good terms with Harish Chandra as she in her defence evidence has also stated that she was being harassed by her husband and she has also complained to her husbands’ higher authorities.. Admittedly, as per the reservation chart prepared, injured Harish Chandra was assigned berth No.60. At the time when the incident took place, he was at berth No.61. No investigation, whatsoever, was done from S. Chandra who was the person to whom berth No.61 was allotted. 13. It is not established that the injured has sustained bullet injury as neither the operative notes have been produced nor there is report about presence of bullet inside the body of the injured. Narendra Singh PW-44 Armourer, who had examined the firearm has stated that he is not in a position to depose as to whether firearm was used and when it was used. 14. Court below has convicted the appellants solely on the basis of the call details Ex.P32 to Ex.P-33 and Ex.P-44 to Ex.P-47. It is important to note that these documents do not bear the signature of any person, whether they have been issued by the service provider is also not established. Ex.P-31 letter written by S.P., GRP, Ajmer to S.H.O., GRP Bandikui, does not bear his signatures. It is an unsigned document. The call details are not proved in accordance with law. Service provider has not been examined in Court. 15. This Court is of the considered view that the document which is not proved by the issuing authority, cannot be made basis of conviction. There being no other incriminating material to connect the appellants with the crime, Court below has committed grave error in relying on the piece of evidence which is not admissible in evidence for convicting the appellants. The appeals therefore deserves to be allowed. 16. In the result, appeals filed by appellants are allowed. The judgment and order dated 19.02.2014, passed by Special Judge (Sati Niwaran) Rajasthan And Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Sessions Case No.36/2010 is quashed and set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. 17. Appellants Anjana and Shrikant are on bail, their bail bonds are cancelled. 18. The judgment and order dated 19.02.2014, passed by Special Judge (Sati Niwaran) Rajasthan And Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Sessions Case No.36/2010 is quashed and set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. 17. Appellants Anjana and Shrikant are on bail, their bail bonds are cancelled. 18. Appellants are directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount in accordance with Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) within two weeks from the date of release to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellants on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Apex Court. The bail bond will be effective for a period of six months.