1. The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence both dated 02.07.2016 whereby all the appellants have been found guilty under S.148 and S.323 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellant Mahendra Paswan additionally under S.307 of the Indian Penal Code. They have been sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year under S.148 of the Indian Penal Code and simple imprisonment for 6 months under S.323 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant Mahendra Paswan has been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under S.307 of the Indian Penal Code and in case of default to pay the fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

2. Prosecution case.
The prosecution case as emerging from the fardbeyan of the informant Sohrai Ram is that at 6 O'clock in the morning on 05.03.2006, the appellants started demolishing the house drainage of the informant saying that the water is flowing from the drainage in their field. When the informant prohibited them from demolishing the drainage, they started assaulting him by fists. Appellant Mahendra Ram exhorted them to shoot him dead, whereupon Mahendra Ram took out pistol from his waist and shot at the informant which hit his back and the pellet remained in the body. When Ramdahin Ram, Dharmendra Ram, Ramkebal Ram, Valdeo Ram and some others living in the same mohalla came, the appellants fled away and the informant was taken to Government hospital, Daudnagar for treatment.

3. Factual background.
On the basis of the fardbeyan, Daudnagar P.S. Case No. 38 of 2006 was registered for the offence punishable under S.147, S.148, S.149, S.323, S.324 and S.307 of the Indian Penal Code and S.27 of the Arms Act. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the Appellants for the offences punishable under S.307, S.323, S.324, S.147, S.148 and S.149 of the Indian Penal Code and S.27 of the Arms Act. After cognizance of the offence, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and charge was framed against the Appellants under S.148, S.323, S.307 read with S.149 of the Indian Penal Code and against the Appellant Mahendra Paswan additional charge under S.324 of the Indian Penal Code and S.27 of the Arms Act were framed. The charges were read over and explained to them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the trial commenced.

4. During trial, altogether eight witnesses were examined. P.W. - 1 is Dhaneshar Ram, who is a co - villager but he knows nothing about the case. P.W. - 2 is Dilkeshwar Ram, who is uncle of the informant and he has claimed to be eye - witness. P.W. - 3 is Anil Kumar Das, who is a co - villager and cousin in relation. P.W. - 4 is Raj Kumari Devi, who is wife of the informant. P.W. - 5 is Lakhpatiya Devi, who is daughter of the informant. P.W. - 6 is Sohrai Ram, who is informant himself. P.W. - 7 is Amiruddin Khan, who is Investigating Officer of the case and P.W. - 8 is Baikunth Singh, who is a formal witness and advocate clerk and injury report and formal F.I.R. have been exhibited through him.

5. The prosecution also brought on record the following documentary evidence: (i) Ext. 1 - Fardbeyan
(ii) Ext. 2 - Formal F.I.R.
(iii)Ext. 3 - Injury report
(iv) Ext. 3/1 - Supplementary Injury report
(v) Ext. 4 - Memo of injury
Statement under S.313 CrPC

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under S.313 CrPC confronting them with incriminating circumstances which came in the prosecution evidence, so as to afford them opportunity to explain those circumstances. During this examination, they admitted that they had heard the evidence of prosecution witnesses against them. But they did not explain any circumstance, though they claimed that the prosecution evidence is false and they are innocent and have been falsely implicated.

7. Findings of the Trial Court