Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 335 of 1998 ****** Against the judgment of conviction dated 19.08.1998 and order of sentence dated 25.08.1998 passed by Sri Mahendra Narayan Singh, learned Additional Sessions Judge 2nd, West Champaran, Motihari in Sessions Trial No. 169/1978/217/1987. ****** Kamal Singh, Son of Late Sheo Narain Singh, Resident of village – Sukhlahiya, P.S. – Chhauradano, (Darpa) District – East Champaran. .... .... Appellant. Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent. ****** For the Appellant : Mr. Uma Kant Shukla, Advocate. Mr. Sushit Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, A.P.P. ****** P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD GOPAL PRASAD, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 2. The appellant has been convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. However, it has been ordered that both the sentenced shall run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case, as alleged, is that on 30.05.1997 in between 12 to 2 5 P.M a mob of 30 persons armed with gun, Bhala, Garasa and Farsa proceeded for setting on fire of Harizan Toli and it is alleged that Harizan also protested and so these persons could not set in fire and in the mean time the police came on motorcycle and at that time some firing was made from the side of 30 persons and it is alleged that this appellant fired from his gun causing pellet injury to one Sitaram Mahra. 4. However, during trial 15 persons were examined as witnesses including the I.O. However, the trial court convicted the appellant. The informant has stated that Kamal Singh was armed with gun and in his evidence in paragraph 1 he has stated that Basu Singh fired double barrel gun causing injury to Ali Raj in his right thigh and Gudar Sahani causing injury in his right elbow respectively and Sitaram Mahra got pellet injury and further take into consideration that according to the witness in his evidence in para 1 and 9 Kamal Singh fired causing injury on Sitaram Mahra on his leg and back and convicted. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, contended that there is evidence that the informant fired causing injury and except the informant none has come to support the prosecution case regarding the implication of this appellant and the injury report has also not been proved and hence the evidence of the sole witness without any corroboration is not worthy of confidence. 6. Learned counsel for the State, however, supported the prosecution case 3 and the evidence and finding of the learned lower court. 7. However, I perused the records and from perusal of the evidence of P.W. 15, it is apparent that this witness has stated that Basu Singh, Ramayan and Kamal Singh were armed with gun and Nalkatti and Basu Singh fired from double barrel gun causing injury to Aliraj in thigh and Gudar Sahani at his right elbow and Sitaram Mahara received pellet injury. However, there is no allegation of firing on this appellant in the evidence of P.W. 15. Though P.W. 9 the informant has stated that Kamal Singh fired by which Sitaram Mahra got injury on the back and leg. However, except the evidence of P.W. 9 none has supported the prosecution case about the implication of this appellant. The injury report has not been proved. The doctor has not been examined. The veracity of P.W. 9 cannot be relied in view of allegation that 30 persons were armed with gun, Bhala and several persons collected on behalf of prosecution and hence the allegation who fires from gun and who received injury is difficult to say. 8. The occurrence is of the year 1979 and the evidence recorded in 1984 and there was mob of more than 30 persons and hence the evidence of sole witness without any corroboration either by medical evidence or by any other evidence is not worthy of reliance. Hence, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt as the injury has not been proved nor the appellant was arrested at the time of occurrence and hence I find and hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and hence the order 4 of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned lower court is hereby set aside and hence the appeal is allowed. (Gopal Prasad, J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated, the 24th July, 2011. N.A.F.R./Kundan.