JUDGMENT : Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for appellant Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel as well as Mrs. Amrita Kumari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State assisted by Mr. Ashish Jha, learned counsel for the informant. 2. Present appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant dated 21.06.2006 and 26.06.2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Sessions Case No. 85 of 2004 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. of seven years. Another co-accused person namely Basir Mian has been acquitted from the charge under Section 307 /34 and 341 of the I.P.C. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 09.12.2003 at about 06:00 AM, informant Hannan Mian (P.W.5) was standing nearby the field where his brothers namely Rahman Mian, Jalauddin Mian and Ramjan Mian were ploughing their patit land, meanwhile Mangal Mian the present appellant along with Basir Mian (co-accused who was acquitted) came there and suddenly, Mangal Mian open fired upon the informant causing injury on his penis area and thigh, thereafter, both the accused persons fled away. It is alleged that the motive behind occurrence is that the accused persons were desiring to dispossess the informant party from their land by cultivating and sowing wheat seeds, although, the disputed land has already been settled in the name of informant’s father. On the basis of above information F.I.R. was registered under Sections 307 and 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the ARMS ACT vide Narayanpur P.S. Case No. 91/2003 and after completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences. After taking cognizance the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and after commitment, the learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara had framed charge on 25.01.2005 against accused Mangal Mian and Basir Mian under Sections 34 1, 307/34 of the I.P.C. and further against Mangal Mian under Section 27 of the ARMS ACT with Section 7 of ARMS ACT , where the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The learned trial court after completion of trial passed the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence, which is assailed in this appeal. 4. The learned trial court after completion of trial passed the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence, which is assailed in this appeal. 4. In order to prove the charges against the appellant, the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses and apart from oral testimony of witnesses following documentary evidences were also adduced:- Exhibit-1:- Signature of Rahman Mian on Fardbeyan. Exhibit-1/1:- Signature of informant on Fardbeyan. Exhibit-1/2:- Signature of witness Ramjan Mian on Fardbeyan. Exhibit-2:- Injury report of Hannan Mian (P.W.5). Exhibit-2/1:- Supplementary injury report of Hannan Mian. Exhibit-3:- Fardbeyan of the informant. Exhibit-4:- Formal F.I.R. Exhibit-5:- Seizure list of underwear. Exhibit-5/1:- Seizure list of blooded soil. Exhibit-6:- Certified copy of order-sheet dated 27.09.1999 to 08.12.1999 passed in Rev. Case No. 198 of 1999/2000 in the Court of S.D.M. Jamtara. 5. The case of defence is denial from the occurrence and false implication. The defence has also examined one witness i.e. Tahir Hussain and following documentary evidence has also been adduced:- Exhibit-A- Certified copy of order dated 19.05.1937 passed in settlement case No. 35 of 1936-37. Exhibit-A/1- Certified copy of order dated 10.11.1936 passed in settlement Case No. 35 of 1936-37. Exhibit-B- Certified copy of Amin’s Banguri report dated 07.05.1937 in settlement Case No. 35 of 1936-37. Exhibit-C- Certified copy of joint settlement petition filed in settlement Case No. 35 of 1936-37. Exhibit-D- Application of Basir Mian dated 02.12.2003. 6. The learned trial court after evaluating the prosecution evidence arrived at conclusion about the guilt of the appellant for the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. and sentenced as stated above which has been assailed in this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the learned trial court has specifically recorded the findings that there was neither firearm injury nor any pellet or any live cartridge was never recovered from the possession of the present appellant and produced during trial, therefore, accused Basir Mian was acquitted from this case. It is further submitted that most of the independent witnesses like P.W.3 (Guli Mian @ Gul Mohamad), P.W.4 (Usuf @ Usuf Mian), P.W.6 (Sanaul Ansari) and P.W.7 (Sukhal Mian) have been declared hostile by the prosecution. Other witnesses are closely related to the informant and strongly interested witnesses, therefore, their testimony cannot be believed and requires great care and circumspection. It is further submitted that most of the independent witnesses like P.W.3 (Guli Mian @ Gul Mohamad), P.W.4 (Usuf @ Usuf Mian), P.W.6 (Sanaul Ansari) and P.W.7 (Sukhal Mian) have been declared hostile by the prosecution. Other witnesses are closely related to the informant and strongly interested witnesses, therefore, their testimony cannot be believed and requires great care and circumspection. It is further alleged that P.W.1 (Jalauddin Mian) is brother of the informant who has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that a case under Section 376 of the I.P.C. has been lodged against his brother Rahman Mian in which Basir Mian (co-accused of this case) was also a witness. Similarly, P.W.2 (Rahman Mian) is also the brother of the informant. P.W.5 (Hannan Mian) is the informant, but testimony of this witness cannot be believed in the light of medical examination report and the genesis and manner of occurrence as alleged by him and other witnesses. The witnesses have stated that the fire arm was sought from a distance of 10 feet. P.W.8 is also not an eye witness, but he has subsequently reached to the place of occurrence and this P.W.8 is also closely related to the injured (P.W.5), but the medical examination report and the injury sustained by the informant clearly shows that it was caused from a very close distance. The nature of injury cannot be caused even by fire arm at a distance of 10 feet. The pant of the informant was also seized by the Investigating Officer (P.W.10) who has also deposed that in the pant, there was no hole or mark of entry of cartridge/pellet rather, the pant was found torn at a place and this shows that no injury caused by fire arms. The appellant has been falsely implicated in this case only on account of sheer enmity regarding land dispute between the parties which is admitted in the F.I.R. itself. The prosecution story has not been corroborated by any independent witness or even by the medical-examination report of the informant. The material exhibits were also not brought on record to corroborate the prosecution story. The appellant has not been convicted for the offence under Section 27 of the ARMS ACT . In the alternative, it is submitted that on the date of occurrence, the appellant was aged about 19 years and has remained in custody during trial for six and half months. The appellant has not been convicted for the offence under Section 27 of the ARMS ACT . In the alternative, it is submitted that on the date of occurrence, the appellant was aged about 19 years and has remained in custody during trial for six and half months. The injuries caused to the injured were also simple in nature except one grievous injury. Since the occurrence is of the year of 2003 and the appellant has already undergone the agony of trial for more than two decades, therefore, his sentence may be reduced to imprisonment already undergone. 8. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has vehemently refuted the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and submitted that the learned trial court has very wisely and aptly apprised and appreciated the evidence available on record. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned trial court and there is no valid reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. This appeal is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed. 9. For better appreciation of the case, I have gone through the case along with the impugned judgment and order in the light of contentions raised by both the parties and it is pertinent to discuss oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties before imparting any verdict on merits. It appears that the appellant along with one Basir Mian were charged for the offence under Sections 34 1 and 307/34 and the present appellant (Mangal Mian) was also separately charged for the offence under Section 27 of the ARMS ACT . In order to substantiate the prosecution case, altogether 10 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. P.W.1 (Jalauddin Mian) is the brother of the informant. According to his evidence, on the date of occurrence, he was ploughing his field in presence of his brothers Rahman Mian, Ramjan Mian and Hannah Mian. He has further deposed that Basir Mian and Mangal Mian came to the field of this witness and started abusing them which led to scuffle for forcibly ploughing the field by saying that it belongs to them. He has further deposed that Basir Mian and Mangal Mian came to the field of this witness and started abusing them which led to scuffle for forcibly ploughing the field by saying that it belongs to them. Thereafter, Basir Mian ordered Mangal Mian (present appellant) to kill them, upon this Mangal Mian (present appellant) whipped out a country-made pistol and fired towards Hannan Mian which caused injury on his thigh and he fell down. Thereafter, both the accused persons fled away. The injured was brought to hospital where his statement was recorded and he also referred to R.M.C.H, Ranchi for better treatment. He has further deposed that the blood stained soil was seized by police from the place of occurrence and seizure list was prepared upon which he has put thumb impression as witness. He has further admits that Rahman Mian has been charged for the offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. and his case is pending wherein Basir Mian (co-accused of this case) is a witness. He has denied the suggestion of the defence that Hannan Mian has put the country-made pistol in his pocket which accidently fired and he has sustained injures due to his own pistol and accused persons have falsely been implicated in this case by taking advantage of that injury. P.W.2 (Rahman Mian) has also corroborated the prosecution story in the same line as P.W.1 and this witness is the brother of the informant and was also present at the ploughing field at the relevant time of the occurrence. He has categorically stated that Mangal Mian (appellant) fired a pistol shot towards the thigh of Hannan Mian, thereafter, both the accused persons fled away. The occurrence took place due to land dispute between the parties. The injured (Hannan Mian) was brought to hospital and further referred to R.M.C.H., Ranchi for better treatment. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that Mangal Mian (appellant) fired shot from a distance of 18 to 20 (Hath) which is approximately 20 to 30 feet. He has denied the suggestion of defence that Hannan Mian having a pistol in his pocket which accidently fired and caused injury to him and accused persons has been involved in this case due to land dispute. He has denied the suggestion of defence that Hannan Mian having a pistol in his pocket which accidently fired and caused injury to him and accused persons has been involved in this case due to land dispute. P.W.3 Guli Mian @ Gul Muhamad has admitted that he was not present in the village on the date of occurrence, rather he returned to village after two months, but did not hear about any incident and declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.4 Usuf Mian @ Usuf Mian has also been declared hostile and he has expressed his complete ignorance from the said occurrence. P.W.5 Hannan Mian is the informant-cum-injured in this case. He has fully corroborated the contents of his fardbeyan and categorically stated that the Mangal Mian (present appellant) had caused injury to him by shooting by firearm due to which he was seriously injured on his thigh and penis area and got his treatment at R.M.C.H., Ranchi. Further, he has proved his signature on the fardbeyan which is marked as Exhibit-1/1 and the signature on fardbeyan of his brother Ramjan Mian marked as Exhibit-1/2. He has also admitted that from the same day of occurrence Patit Mian has lodged a case against informant party including himself. He has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that he was shot by the accused (Mangal Mian) from a distance of 30 to 40 hands which is approximately (40 to 50 feet), thereafter, he fell down and accused persons fled away. He has denied the suggestion of the defence that the disputed land belong to the accused persons which was settled in favour of their family members and they have also sown wheat crop on the land which was destroyed by this witness and his family members, hence a case was lodged against them. He has also denied the suggestion of defence that he was having a pistol in his pocket which accidently fired and he sustained injuries and also denied that he has falsely implicated the accused persons in this case due to land dispute. P.W.6 Sanaul Ansari has also been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.7 Sukhal Mian has also been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.8 Jabbar Ansari is the nephew of the informant and son of Jalauddin Main (P.W.1). P.W.6 Sanaul Ansari has also been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.7 Sukhal Mian has also been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.8 Jabbar Ansari is the nephew of the informant and son of Jalauddin Main (P.W.1). He has admitted that on the date of occurrence at about 06:00 AM, he has gone to river side for attending nature’s call, then he heard sound of fire-shot and went towards his field where he saw his uncle (Hannan Mian) was shouting, thereafter, he brought a cot and Hannan Mian was taken to hospital. He has further deposed that Hannan Mian told that Basir Mian and Mangal Mian have caused him injury by fire arm. It appears that this is a hearsay witness who received information from the informant and only has seen the informant in injured condition. P.W.9 Dr. Rajendra Prasad Singh posted as Medical Officer at Primary Health Center, Narayanpur and has medically examined Hannan Maian and has found following:- (i) Lacerated wound 6 cm x 5 c.m. x 2 c.m. on right side of scrotum with scorched and blackening of the wound. (ii) Lacerated would 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. on posterior surface of the root of the penis. There is rupture of the urethra there is blackening and scorched. Follis catherta has been posted. (iii) Lacerated wound 2 cm. x 1 1/2 cm. on medical surface of the left thigh in its upper part. There is scorched and blackening of the wound. (iv) Massive swelling with deep tenderness on the left thigh. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he has not mentioned in the injury report that any police personnel had accompanied the injured to P.H.C., Narayanpur. However, he has mentioned in the injury report that injured was brought and identified by Ramjan Mian, son of Jarib Main of village Koidiha and he was not known to the injured person from before. He has further stated that he has not found any pellets from place of injury and opined that the injury found on the body of injured is possible from firing with a fire arm from a short distance. P.W.10 Ganesh Narayan Singh is the investigating officer of this case. According to his evidence, he has proved the fardbeyan of the informant as Exhibit-3, formal F.I.R. as Exhibit-4. He has also seized the undergarment of injured Hannan Mian in presence of independent witnesses. P.W.10 Ganesh Narayan Singh is the investigating officer of this case. According to his evidence, he has proved the fardbeyan of the informant as Exhibit-3, formal F.I.R. as Exhibit-4. He has also seized the undergarment of injured Hannan Mian in presence of independent witnesses. He has proved the seizure list as exhibit-5. He arrested the accused persons. During the course of investigation, he again went to P.H.C., Narayanpur where he has recorded the re-statement of the informant and for his better treatment, the injured was sent to Medical College, Ranchi. He has also visited the place of occurrence where he found some spots of blood which were dried and also seized blood stained soil in presence of witnesses which is marked as exhibit-5/1. He also recorded the statement of witnesses and after finding sufficient evidence, submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons. In his cross-examination, this witness admits that he has seen the undergarment of the injured which was seized wherein no hole caused by firing was seen rather at one place, the pant was torn. No firearms were recovered from the house of the accused person. He has not produced the undergarment of the injured and also admits that blood stained soil was not sent to F.S.L., Ranchi 10. On the other hand one defence witness namely, Tahir Hussain has also been examined who has proved the application lodged by Basir Mian before Narayanpur Police Station as Exhibit-D. 11. From the aforesaid evidences, it appears that there is no doubt that the informant sustained firearm injury which finds corroboration from the evidence of Doctor (P.W.9) who has noticed and described injuries on thigh, root of the penis, scrotum and specifically opined that such type of injury may be caused from a close range firing. In the instant case not only the informant who is the victim, but also the sterling eye-witness of the prosecution has categorically stated that the firearm was sought at a distance hands (approximately 40 to 50 feet). Another eye-witness P.W.2 has also stated that the fire was open from a distance of 18-20 hands (approximately 20 to 30 feet). Apparently, the injuries sustained by the informant (P.W.5) as mentioned in injury report Exhibit-2 categorically indicates that such type of injuries cannot be caused by a country made pistol by firing from a distance of 30 to 40 feet. Apparently, the injuries sustained by the informant (P.W.5) as mentioned in injury report Exhibit-2 categorically indicates that such type of injuries cannot be caused by a country made pistol by firing from a distance of 30 to 40 feet. Rather the opinion of the doctor that the said firearm injury caused may be from a short distance appears to be genuine and believable. The genesis of occurrence is admittedly land dispute between the parties and it is admitted in the F.I.R. itself and that prior to some days of occurrence, the accused persons have ploughed the same land and sown the wheat crop and the same land again being ploughed by the informant party by destroying crop sown by the accused persons. It further appears that not a single villager have supported the prosecution story, the injured was also not referred by police for a medical examination at P.H.C. rather he was himself admitted for treatment. In the circumstances proved by the prosecution itself clearly suggest that the injury sustained by the informant was not caused in the manner as alleged by the injured-informant. Rather it may be a case of accidental firing of pistol from own pocket of the injured-informant. It further appears that the learned trial court has exonerate the appellant from the charge under Section 27 of the ARMS ACT , therefore, the very causing of injury from an unlicensed firearm, does not remain substantiated against the appellant. The cumulative effect of prosecution evidence makes the entire happening a story shrouded with doubt. It is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that benefit of doubt always goes in favour of the accused. It appears that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellant and learned trial court has remained in dilemma while appreciating the evidence of prosecution and also arriving at definite conclusion. The trial court has itself acquitted the appellant under Section 27 of the ARMS ACT and failed to consider the nature of injury sustained by the informant due to use of firearm from a close distance and arrived at wrong conclusion. 12. In view of above discussion and reasons, I find merits in this appeal, therefore, impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant is not legally sustainable which is hereby set aside and this appeal is allowed. 13. 12. In view of above discussion and reasons, I find merits in this appeal, therefore, impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant is not legally sustainable which is hereby set aside and this appeal is allowed. 13. Appellant is on bail, hence, he is discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties are also be discharged 14. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court records be send back to the court concerned for information and needful.