The lack of corroboration from independent sources and medical experts can undermine the credibility of the prosecution's case.

Anjana Prakash, J.

1. The Appellant has been convicted Under Section 324 I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to R.I. for two years and three years respectively by a judgment dated 17.1.1997 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari in Sessions Trial No. 135 of 1982/ 58 of 1987.

2. The case of the prosecution according to Asharfi Rai is that on the night of 15.1.1981 when he had gone to urinate, he saw 10 to 12 persons were coming and when he interrupted them, one of them gave orders, at which the Appellant is said to have fired at him causing injury on his right hand. The informant identified six accused persons, accompanying the Appellant.

3. During trial, five persons were put on trial but four of them were acquitted and only the Appellant was convicted as mentioned above.

4. During trial, the prosecution has examined eight witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.3, P.W.6 and P.W.8 are formal witnesses, whereas P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.7 are on the factum of occurrence, out of which P.W.5 is the informant. P.W.3 is a formal witness. P.W.4 is the brother of P.W.2, whereas P.W.7 is the brother of the informant. Neither the doctor nor the Investigating Officer have been examined in the present case.

5. On going through the evidence on record, I find that apart from interested witnesses there is no further corroboration from any independent source nor from any medical expert.

6. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellant on 17.1.1997 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari in Sessions Trial No. 135 of 1982/ 58 of 1987 is set aside. The Appellant is discharged from the liability of his bail bond.