The prosecution must prove the charges against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and the evidence of interested and related witnesses is not sufficient to establish guilt.

I.P.Singh, J.

1. All the appellants have been convicted under sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years. Appellant nos. 1, 3 and 4, namely, Hridayanand Yadav, Ramabadan Yadav and Dipty Yadav have been further convicted under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Similarly appellants no. 5, 7 and 8, namely, Ramadhar Yadav, Ramlayak Yadav and Ramanand Yadav have been convicted under section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Appellants, namely, Hirdayanand Yadav, Rambadan Yadav, Dipty Singh, Lal Bahadur Singh, Raghubir Singh, Vijaya Singh and Janardan Singh have further been convicted under section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. However, the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant Srikrishna Singh gave his fardbeyan on 6.4.1978 at 10 PM. in the injured condition and stated that in the evening at about 7.30 PM. he was sitting in his Khaiihan located in the south of the village, along with Sheonarair Sinnh yadav Suresh Sinha, Sheoji yadav and were chatting among them. In the meantime 30-40 persons variously armed with deadly weapons came in the Khalihan and began to pick up wheat bundles kept there. Since he and other persons sitting there made Hulla and flashed their torch and asked as to why they were doing so, appellant Hridyanand Yadav, Rambadan Yadav, Dipty Yadav of the same village else in the mob and were armed with country made gun began to fire causing injury to the informant and other persons sitting in the Khaiihan. It is said that on their Hulla and also hearing the sound of firing villagers assembled and appellants began to flee away among whom he identified appellant Hridaya Nand Yadav, Ram Badan Yadav, Dipti Yadav, Ramadhar Yadav, Raghubir Yadav, Vijay Yadav, Kaushal Yadav, Jamadar Yadav, Ramadhar Yadav, Ramlayak Yadav and Ramnami Yadav of the same village. It is said that the appellant were armed with country made gun except Ramadhar and Ramlayak Yadav and Ramnami Yadav who were armed with Bhala. It is said that on Hulla Jagdish Yadav, Ramprabesh Yadav, Sheoparsan Yadav and other persons had reached there and saw the occurrence. It is also said that the informant and the other persons sitting in the Khaiihan tried to conceal them In rnids of wheat bundles and could save their life. It is also said that due to old enmity and litigations going with the appellants this occurrence was committed by them. On the basis of this fardbeyan F..I.R. was drawn up. After investigation charge sheet was submitted against the appellants. Thereafter cognizance was taken and trial concluded with the resuft as stated above.

3. The appellants pleaded not guilty and have stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity.

4. The prosecution to prove its case has examined altogether 9 witnesses. P.W.1, Ramprabesh Yadav, is the father of the informant. P.W.2, Sheoji Singh Yadav, P.W.4, Suresh Singh, and P.W. 5, Sheo Narain Singh are the injured and eye witnesses of the occurrence. P.W.3, Jagdish Yadav, is another eye witness. P.W.6, Gorakh Dusadh is a seizure list witness. P.W.7 is the informant himself. RW.8, Murat Ram is a formal witness. P.W.9 is I.O.

5. P.Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 5 are said to have received injuries at the instance of the appellants. P.W.5 is also an witness to the occurrence. The rests are formal witnesses. On perusal of entire evidence, facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the prosecution version is that the appellants and other 30-40 in number came to the Khaiihan of the informant at about 7.30 P.M. They started removing wheat bundles and on protest against this action it is said that the appellants used fire arms causing injuries to P.Ws. 2, 4 and 5. Further case of the prosecution is that as per