JUDGMENT :

Sukhvinder Kaur, J.

The appellant-State has preferred the instant appeal against judgment dated 04.09.2003, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, vide which respondents-accused have been acquitted.

2. Factual Scenario, as per prosecution version is that on 09.06.1997 complainant Harpal Singh along with Dial Singh, Chamkaur Singh @ Kori, Gurjant Singh and Pappa Singh were going from village Nangal towards Chandigarh in gypsy bearing registration No.UP-80-0095 being driven by Chamkaur Singh. At around 8.30 A.M. when they reached near Nihal Singh Wala, turn at Ransih Kalan, gun shots suddenly started coming from the Chobara on the left side. They saw that Amarjit Kumar was standing in front of a shop, who exhorted that they not be spared that day.

3. Then Darshan Singh armed with a gun, who was standing in the Chobara fired at them with his rifle with intent to kill. The bullet hit Gurjant Singh on left side of his neck. Berant Singh armed with a .12 bore gun, Sukhdev Singh armed with a .315 bore rifle, Ajaib Singh armed with .12 bore gun and Pawan Kumar armed with a .315 bore rifle, who were also standing in the chobara also started firing at them. They sped away their gypsy towards village Dhoorkot. Injured Gurjant Singh was sent to the hospital. The matter was reported to the police and FIR was accordingly registered. The alleged motive behind the occurrence was that they had sold some land situated at Mandi Nihal Singh Wala to Gurcharan Singh and accused Amarjit Kumar and others wanted to take possession of said land. Empties of the cartridges were recovered from the place of occurrence and the accused except accused Pawan Kumar were arrested and weapons of offence were recovered. Accused Pawan Kumar managed to escape. Statements of witnesses were recorded, rough site plan was prepared and after completion of investigation, challan was presented before the Court.

4. After having found a prima facie case, charges for offences punishable under Sections 307, 148 and 149 of IPC Section 27 of the Arms Act were framed against the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Separate challan under Section 25 of the Arms Act was presented against accused Beant Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Pawan Kumar and during the course of trial vide order dated 05.06.2002, proceedings against accused Pawan Kumar were ordered to abate, on account of his death, whereas accused Darshan Singh was declared proclaimed offender vide order dated 05.09.2002 and trial proceeded against remaining accused Amarjit Kumar, Beant Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Ajaib Singh.

5 . In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW1-Dr.V.J.S. Dhillon, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Moga, PW2- Harpal Singh, complainant, PW3-Gurjant Singh, PW4-Dial Singh, PW5-Gursewak Singh, Draftsman, PW6-ASI Surjit Singh, PW7-HC Pal Singh, PW8-LC Jaswinder Singh, PW9-Jagir Singh and PW10-ASI Gursewak Singh.

6. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded in which, all incriminating evidence was put to them, which they denied and pleaded innocence.

7. After considering the evidence on record, learned trial Court acquitted the accused of the offences for which they had been charge-sheeted, vide judgment dated 04.09.2003.

8. Aggrieved of the said decision, present appeal has been filed by the appellant-State challenging acquittal of the accused/ respondents.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has assailed the impugned judgment by vehemently contending that the trial Court has not taken into account the convincing and cogent prosecution evidence available on the file. The trial Court has wrongly held that gun shot from .12 bore gun could not have covered such a long distance of 165 yards between the assailant and the victim. It has been overlooked that as per the evidence on record, one empty cartridge of 315 bore gun was also recovered from the spot and as such possibility cannot be ruled out that the injury on the neck of injure