Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 193 OF 1997 Against the judgment and order dated 21.07.1997 passed by Sri Bidhu Bhushan Pathak, 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in S.Tr. No. 80/95/17/97. ************ Bhim Singh, S/o Late Indradeo Singh, resident of Village-Bishunpur, P.S.-Risiup, District-Aurangabad. ……(Appellant) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR-------(Opposite Party) With Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 197 of 1997 Mahamaya Singh, S/o Late Indradeo Singh, resident of Village-Bishunpur, P.S.-Risiup, District- Aurangabad (Bihar). …….(Appellant) Versus The State of Bihar.………(Respondent) ************* For the Appellants : Sri Krishna Pd. Singh, Sr. Adv. : Mr. Manindra Kishore Singh, Adv. : Mr. Manish Kumar-III, Adv. For the State : Mr. Choubey Jawahar, APP. : Dr. Indiwar Kumari, APP. ************** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The appellants have been convicted under Section 307/34 IPC and 27 Arms Act and sentenced to RI for ten years and three years respectively by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in S.Tr. No. 80/95/17/97 by a judgment dated 21.07.1997. 2. The case of the prosecution according to Ran Bijay Singh is that on 22.06.1994 when he along with his brother Ash Narain Singh the injured were returning from market the accused persons came there and appellant Bhim Singh fired which did not hit him whereafter appellant Mahamaya Singh fired again which did not hit him. The reason of dispute is the last MLA’s Election the brother of Ashnarain Singh namely Satnarain Singh had thrown bomb 2 on the accused persons for which a case was pending and therefore to take revenge the present occurrence had taken place. 3. During trial the prosecution in all examined eleven witnesses out of whom P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 are only on the point of having reached the place of occurrence and seeing the injured, P.W. 7 lying on the earth soaked with blood. P.W. 5 is the Dafadar who is hearsay witness. P.W. 6 is a seizure witness. P.W. 10 is the Investigating Officer whereas P.W. 11 is the Doctor who examined the injured P.W. 7. P.W. 8, Ran Bijay Singh is the informant. P.W. 9 is also formal witness. 4. P.W. 8 stated in Court that on 22.06.1994 at about 6.30 P.M. when he along with his brother Ash Narain Singh P.W. 7 were returning to the market appellant Bhim Singh fired which did not hit whereafter the appellant Mahamaya Singh fired which hit Ashnarain Singh standing nearby on his left eye and upper left arm. When he fell down the witnesses arrived there and the accused persons fled away. The injured was then taken to hospital where they made statement and also got examined. 5. P.W. 7, Jugeshwar Singh the injured stated likewise that when they were returning from market appellant Bhim Singh firstly fired at him which did not hit and thereafter appellant Mahamaya Singh fired at him which hit him on account of which he fell down and became unconscious. The Doctor, P.W. 11 who examined the injured, Satnarain Singh stated that he found five injuries on his person out of which injuries No. 1, 2, 3 and 5 were caused by 3 firearm injuries whereas injury No. 4 was on the left shoulder caused by hard and blunt substance. With regard to injuries No. 1 and 3 opinion was reserved. The prosecution had not brought any final report about the nature of injuries. The rest of the three injuries were simple in nature. 6. Even accepting the prosecution case in its entirety on the basis of the eye witness account of P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 as also the corroborative evidence of P.W. 11, in my opinion, no offence under Section 307/34 IPC would be made out since despite there being no intervening circumstance the fire was not repeated by the appellants. 7. In the result, the appellants are acquitted of the charges under Section 307/34 IPC but convicted under Section 324/34 IPC. Their conviction under Section 27 Arms Act is upheld. However, the sentence is modified to the period already undergone by them during trial. In addition the Appellants (if alive) are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- each to the injured Satyanarain Singh/his family within four months of the report of notice by the Trial Court and if they fail to do so a further Rigorous Imprisonment for three months. 8. With the aforesaid modifications in conviction and sentence, the appeals are dismissed. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 13th July, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/-