Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 148 OF 1995 ******** Against the judgment and order of conviction dated 17.7.1995 passed in Sessions Trial No. 397/173 of 1993 by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Kaimur at Bhabhua. ****** HARENDRA KUMAR SINGH S/O SURESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, R/O VILLAGE- SAKARI, P.S.- KUDRA, DISTRICT- KAIMUR AT BHABHUA. ……..….. Appellant Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …..………. Respondent ************ Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 159 OF 1995 ******** BIPIN KUMAR SINGH S/O SHEOPUJAN SINGH R/O VILLAGE- SAKRI, P.S.- KUDRA, DISTRICT- BHABHUA (KAIMUR) ……..….. Appellant Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …..………. Respondent ************ For the Appellant : Mr. Kapildeo Singh Adv. For the State : Mr. Chaubey Jawahar APP. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ********* Anjana Prakash, J. Both the appellants have been convicted under Section 307/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years as also under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo for 2 years by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Kaimur at Bhabhua in Sessions Trial No. 397/173 of 1993 by the judgment dated 17.7.1995. 2. The case of the informant Mahavir Singh is that while he was traveling on train on 18.1.1993 the accused persons sat by his side and thereafter, the appellant Harendra Kr. Singh is said to have assaulted him on the gun and two other accused namely Pappu Kr. Singh and Bipin Kr. Singh are said to have fired upon the informant where after, they fled away. 3. The prosecution in all examined 10 witnesses out of whom P.W. 1 is a formal witness who had merely submitted the charge sheet whereas P.W.9 is the doctor who issued discharge certificate with regard to the informant Mahavir Singh, P.W. 8 is the Investigating Officer, P.W. 7 is also medical officer who had examined the injured Mahavir Singh on 18.01.1993, P.W. 6, 4, 3 and 2 are on the point that they had seen the injured informant and he had disclosed the names of the accused persons to them, P.W. 5 is the informant. 4. During trial P.W. 5 was the sole eye-witness who materially contradicted himself by stating that accused Pappu Kr. Singh had not participated in the occurrence. This is in direct contradiction to the allegations contained in the First Information Report, wherein he had specifically stated that the accused Pappu Kr. Singh and appellant Bipin Kr. Singh had fired at him on his face. 5. Under the circumstances, since the law on the point of acceptance of evidence of the sole witness is clear that it should be completely trustworthy and which is not the case here, I am inclined to give benefit of doubt to the two appellants. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Kaikur at Bhabhua in Sessions Trial No. 397/173 of 1993 by the judgment dated 17.7.1995 are hereby set aside and they are acquitted of their respective charges. The appellants are discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. Patna High Court, ( Anjana Prakash, J. ) Patna Dated the 29th April, 2011 NAFR/ Fahad.