Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.235 OF 1994 Against the Judgment and order dated 15.7.1994 passed by Sri Rakesh Ranjan Verma, 1st Assistant Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi, in Sessions Trail No.173 of 1986 / 41 of 1987. LAXMI SINGH, son of Late Kailash Singh, resident of Village-Athari,P.S-Runi Saidpur, District- Sitamarhi -------(Appellant) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ------(Respondent) For the appellant : Mr.V.R.P.Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. A.N.P.Mehta, A.P.P. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash,J. The appellant has been convicted by the 1st Assistant Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi, S.Tr.No.173 of 1986 /41 of 1987 by Judgment and order dated 15.7.1994 under section 307/148 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 10 years and 2 years respectively and section 27 of Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 5 years. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.6.1986 while the informant was standing at the door of courtyard she found injured Birendra Singh running towards his door who stated that the appellant had fired at him and he fell down. Thereafter other co- accused Jai Chandra, Shiv Chandra and the son-in-law of Kailash Singh started to pull him away but they were prevented from doing so. 3. The prosecution to prove its case examined in all 11 witnesses. P.W.9 is the informant. P.W. 7 is the injured, Birendra 2 Singh whereas P.W. 6 is a relative of the informant and P.W. 10 is the doctor while P.W. 11 is the investigating officer. P.W. 3 and 4 are seizure witnesses P.W. 2 and 5 have been tendered and P.W. 1 has been declared hostile. 4. Apart from P.W. 7 the injured there is no eye witness. Admittedly there was a proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C. going on between the parties and in the manner that has been narrated it would be difficult for anyone to see that, in fact, it was the appellant who had fired at the informant because, the injuries have been sustained from back. The appellant does not dispute the occurrence but the possibility of the appellant being falsely implicated on account of previous litigation cannot be completely ruled out. Moreover, there is no corroboration through independent sources about the involvement of the appellant which was essential in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. In the result this appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant by the Ist Assistant Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi, in Sessions Trial No.173 of 1986 / 41 of 1987 by the judgment dated 15.7.1994 are hereby set aside and he is acquitted of his charge. The appellant is discharged from the liability of his bail bond. Patna High Court,Patna Dated the 1st April,2011. N.A.F.R./AnilKrSinha ( Anjana Prakash, J.)