Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 95 OF 1995 ******** Against the judgment and order of conviction dated 14.6.1995 passed in S.T. No. 426/1987 by the learned 9th Additional District Judge, Bhojpur, Arrah. ****** 1. RAM NATH SINGH 2. SIDHNATH SINGH @ BHUDAI SINGH BOTH S/O LATE PARAS SINGH 3. RAM CHANDER SINGH S/O SHEO SHANKAR SINGH 4. ANIL SINGH S/O RAM SHANKAR SINGH ALL R/O VILLAGE SHEUPUR, P.S.- AGIAON, DISTRICT- BHOJPUR AT ARRAH ……..….. Appellants Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …..………. Respondent ************ For the Appellant : Mr. Sheo Narayan Singh Adv. For the State : Mr. J.K. Singh APP. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ********* Anjana Prakash, J. The appellant no.1 has been convicted under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years whereas the rest of the appellants have been convicted under Section 307/144 I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 4 years. All the appellants have further been convicted under Section 144 I.P.C. and sentenced to 6 months and 7 days rigorous imprisonment under Section 341 I.P.C. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 26.10.1985 at about 10 p.m. accused persons chased the informant and accused Ekram Singh (deceased) It fired twice on him whereas the appellant no.1 also fired once at which the informant jumped into a ditch and saved himself. 3. During trial the prosecution examined 6 witnesses out of whom P.W.1 is the wife of the informant whereas P.W.5 is a formal witness P.W.4 has been declared hostile, P.W.6 is the Investigating Officer of the case, P.W.2 and 3 are the son and father of the informant. The informant himself was not examined because he had died in the meanwhile. Admittedly all the material witnesses are family members of the informant and apart from the statement that they had seen the appellant no.1 firing on the informant admittedly no injury was found to him and it is difficult to conclude that in fact situation an offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is made out in the facts of the case. 4. Further P.W.1 has contradicted herself by admitting that she was not an eye-witness to the occurrence nor has any means of identification being produced by the prosecution to sustain the identification of the appellants. 5. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants by the learned 9th Additional District Judge, Bhojpur, Arrah in S.T. No. 426/1987 by the judgment dated 14.6.1995 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 18th April, 2011 NAFR/ Fahad.