JUDGMENT

S.P. Kurdukar, J.-Both the appellants (A-1 and A-2) were tried for an offence punishable under Section 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code alleging that on 7th July, 1986, they attempted to commit the murder of one Rahu Ram (PW 5) by their pistols.

2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is as under :-

Rahu Ram (PW 5) is a resident of Barnala road, Sirsa. He was an office bearer of the truck union at Sirsa. Two fold motive as alleged by the prosecution, is that (1) murder of Brij Lal - the father of Balwant Singh (A-2) by Dungar (brother of PW 5) some 30 years back, (2) Maru Ram, uncle of A-1 and A-2 was killed in an incident which took place in the office of the truck union at Sirsa. It is alleged by the prosecution that A-1 and A-2 were under the belief that Maru Ram was got killed by Rahu Ram (PW 5).

3. On 7th July, 1986, Rahu Ram (PW 5) was sitting on the chair outside the radio repair shop of Raj. At that time, both the accused came from the direction of Sirsa town and told Rahu Ram (PW 5) that they would teach him a lesson for giving evidence in the murder case of Maru Ram. It is alleged by the prosecution that Balwant Singh (A-2) caught hold of Rahu Ram (PW 5) from the waist. Rahu Ram (PW 5) grappled with Balwant Singh (A-2) and in that process pistol carried by him fell down from his pocket. Rahu Ram (PW 5) kicked that pistol away. In the mean time, Chhotu (A-1) took out pistol from his pocket and placed on the chest of Rahu Ram (PW 5). Fortunately, for Rahu Ram, the pistol did not fire. A-1 again tried to fire through the said pistol but could not succeed. Ram Murti (PW 6) and one Arjan who were standing nearby came to the rescue of Rahu Ram. In the meantime, both the accused fled away with their weapons. Rahu Ram (PW 5) and Ram Murti (PW 6) then hired a Rickshaw to go to police station to lodge a report but the police met them near Tehsil office. Rahu Ram (PW 5) gave his statement to the police on the basis of which FIR was recorded in the police station.

4. Rahu Ram (PW 5) was then sent to the hospital for medical examination. Dr. P.K. Jain (PW 1), examined him and noticed one lacerated wound measuring 5 x .5 x .5 cm on the right parietal region and it was bleeding. Two more abrasions were also found on the left knee joint. Dr. P.K. Jain (PW 1) accordingly issued the injury certificate in respect of Rahu Ram (PW 5). After completing the necessary investigations, both the accused were put up for trial for the aforesaid offence. Both the accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried. According to them, they have been falsely implicated because of enmity with Rahu Ram (PW 5). They are innocent and they be acquitted.

5. Apart from the evidence of injured Rahu Ram (PW 5), the prosecution examined Ram Murti (PW 6) as an eye witness in addition to the examination of other formal witnesses.

6. The learned Additional Judge, Designated Court, Bhiwani at Sirsa on appraisal of the evidence on record held that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused and accordingly by his judgment and order dated May 23, 1987 convicted them for an offence punishable under Section 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Trial Judge sentenced each of the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. It is this order of conviction and sentence, which is sought to be challenged by the appellants in this appeal.

7. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, we have gone through the evidence and other materials on record. Learned counsel for the appellants urged that the evidence of Rahu Ram (PW 5) and Ram Murti (PW 6) is totally untrustworthy and the same cannot form the basis of conviction. It was then contended that if the accused had any intention to commit the murder of Rahu Ram (PW 5), there was no difficulty whatsoever when they alleged to have gone th