The court held that the prosecution had established a charge under S. 307 of the IPC against the appellant based on the evidence of the victim and other witnesses, who identified the appellant as the one who fired the gun.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 24-4-84 passed by Shri A. K. Maity, Additional Sessions Judge, Nadia, First Court, whereby the sole appellant Uttam Ghosh was convicted of the offence under S. 307 of the I. P. C. and was sentenced to undergo R. I. for five years for the said offence. The period of earlier detention, if any, was directed to be set of against the term of imprisonment imposed on him. It may be added here that by the same order some other co-accused persons, namely, Babloo Ghosh, Satya Ghosh, Gopal Ghosh and Nemai Ghosh, who had been jointly charged under S. 307/34 of the I. P. C. along with the appellant, were acquitted of the said charge.

( 2 ) THE prosecution case in brief is that in the night between the 4th and 5/05/1982, the R. G. Party (Resistance Group Party) of village Garuimari, P. S. Chapra, District Nadia was patrolling in the village under the control of the Group Captain Jagannath Ghosh (PW 8 ). The R. G. Party consisted of some other members such as the informant Paritosh Ghosh (PW 1), Anukul Ghosh (PW 2), Bhakta Sardar (PW 3), Madan Mohan Ghosh (not examined), Tehul Sardar (not examined) and Sahadeo Sardar (not examined ). The watch and guard duty of the R. G. Party was over at about 4 a. m. in the early morning and, thereupon, the members had dispersed and were returning to their respective home. Suddenly, a sound of firing was heard and the Group Captain Jagannath Ghosh (PW 8), sustained some injuries and fell down on the ground. The members of the R. G. Party having heard the sound of firing rushed towards the victim Jagannath Ghosh, who had sustained injuries on his jaw and ear. They also found the appellant Uttam Ghosh and the co-accused present there being variously armed. Appellant Uttam Ghosh threatened them not to proceed ahead and, thereafter, they all (accused) dispersed. On the alarm being then raised, some villagers arrived there, nursed the victim and took him to Chapra Police Station in a cart. The informant, Paritosh Ghosh (PW 1) lodged F. I. R. at 5. 25 a. m. on 5-5-82. The victim was thereafter sent to Chapra Primary Health Centre, where he was examined by Dr. Aruna Mukherjee (PW 5), who soon thereafter referred him to Sakti Nagar Hospital, where he was treated by Dr. A. K. Basu Mallick (PW 7 ). The case was investigated by the S. I. of Police, Mani Mohan Basu (PW 9), who, ultimately, submitted a charge-sheet in the case. rial allegations, made by the prosecution; and it was contended inter alia that the informant along with the victim and others illegally entered into the house of one Namita @ Nanu Ghosh (not examined) at about 2 a. m. on the same night and assaulted her. They also committed theft in the house of Namita. The accused were said to have been falsely implicated due to previous enmity between the parties.

( 4 ) AT the trial, it was held that the prosecution had been able to establish a charge under S. 307 of the I. P. C. only against the appellant Uttam Ghosh, whereas the other co-accused were declared to be entitled to benefit of reasonable doubt; and hence there was a judgment and order as already referred to above.

( 5 ) THE appellant has assailed the findings of the Trial Court on the ground of the material witnesses of the prosecution being partisan due to some previous enmity as also on account of certain contradictions in the medical evidence on the record. It was also urged that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt as given to the co-accused, who have since been acquitted.

( 6 ) ENMITY cuts both the ways. The victim and the appellant were admittedly on inimical terms. In the instant case, therefore a question does arise whether an attempt of murder was made on the victim on being perpetrated by the enmity between the parties or whether it was because of that enmity that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case. On an earlier occasion, some time in the past prior to the incident of th