S.A.KHAN, J. - (1.) NOBODY appears on behalf of the appellants. Mr. Arun Kumar Tripathi, Advocate of this Court is appointed as Amicus Curiae in this case who is present in Court.
(2.) THE appellants have been found guilty under Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act and have been convicted to undergo R.I. for three years under Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and two years R.I. under Section 27 of the Arms Act. It was ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently. Appellant no. 1 has been taken into custody for one month and the other two appellants have remained in custody for 22 The prosecution case as per the Fardbeyan is that on 27.4.1986, the informant Radhe Kahar was fishing in a pond. It is said that the accused persons arrived armed with licensed gun and ordered the informant to leave the pond/tank. The informant continued to fish which infuriated the accused persons and it is alleged that Nagina Dhanuk, appellant no. 1 fired hitting the chest, nose and thigh of the informant. The prosecution has examined four witnesses during trial. P.W. 1 is the informant who has been declared hostile. P.W. 2, Kameshwar Yadav has also been declared hostile. The Investigating Officer and the doctor have not been examined in this case. The Court has convicted the appellants on the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 4. The informant Radhe Kahar has accepted that some persons came to the tank where he was fishing and ordered everyone present there to leave the premises. Thereafter he alleges that one of them fired. P.W. 1 has specifically stated that he could not identify the man who fired as he had covered his face. P.W. 2, Kameshwar Yadav is a hearsay witness and does not disclose as to who gave him the information regarding the occurrence. P.W. 3, Bijli Yadav claims that he was also fishing in the pond when the occurrence took place. According to him the pond is not leased out by the State Government and at least 50 persons were fishing in the pond. It is alleged by him that it was Nagina who fired hitting the informant thereby supporting the case made out in the First Information Report. P.W. 4, Bajrangi Ram is the brother of the informant and according to him it was Nagina Dhanuk who fired on the informant. He claims that after the occurrence took place, he did not go to the hospital nor he go with his brother to lodge the First Information Report. According to P.W. 4 there is always a dispute between the Dhanuks and Yadavs regarding fishing rights over the said tank/Jalkar. The Trial Court has convicted the appellants relying on the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4. This Court however, finds itself unable to rely on the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 as it is not supported by the evidence of the man who received the injury. The injury is said to be as per the First Information Report on the chest, nose and thigh of the informant. The injury report has not been exhibited in this case. In case under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, the Court must not only look into the evidence but also the injury report if the evidence is such an impeccable nature, the Court may not require the injury report to hold the accused guilty for causing an injury of the nature as described by the eye-witnesses in this case. However, if the ocular evidence is weak and is not supported by the informant, it cannot be said that it is sufficient to warrant conviction. Moreso, for the reason that the names of P.Ws. 3 and 4 have not been disclosed in the First Information Report as witnesses to the occurrence. These witnesses have stated that they were present however, both of them do not acknowledge the presence of each other at the place of occurrence.
(3.) IN the circumstances aforesaid, this Court finds that it is not safe to rely on the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 and convict the appellants on the basis of their evidence. The conviction under Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act is set aside.;