Hon’ble Shri Kant Tripathi, J.—Heard Mr. Jai Narayan, the learned counsel for the appellant Nos. 1 and 3 and Dr. Abida Syed, the learned Amicus Curaie appointed by this Court and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the lower Court record.

2. The appellants Nandan, Chhedu, Shrikishan and Subedar have preferred this appeal against the common judgment and order dated 3.2.1982 rendered by Shri K.M. Chaturvedi, the then VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in Sessions Trial No. 414 of 1980 and Sessions Trial No. 83 of 1981, whereby he has convicted the appellants under Section 307/34 IPC and sentenced each of them to under go rigorous imprisonment of seven years.

3. According to the prosecution story, in the night between 12/13 October 1979, the complainant Jagannath @ Bhagat alongwith his son PW-1 Sohan Lal had gone for watering his paddy field from the canal within the limit of village Suswan Buzurg. After watering the field, when the complainant and his son were coming back and reached in front of the field of one Nathuwa at about 1.30 AM, the appellant No. 2 Chhedu duly armed with a gun, the appellant No. 4 Subedar duly armed with a country made pistol and the appellant No. 1 Nandan and the appellant No. 3 Shrikishan duly armed with lathi arrived there all of a sudden and on the exhortation given by the appellant No. 3 Shrikishan, the appellant No. 2 Chhedu and the appellant No. 4 Subedar fired at the complainant Jagannath @ Bhagat with their respective fire arms. Consequently the complainant sustained fire arm injuries. On hearing alarm, the witnesses Deonath and Girdhari arrived at the place of occurrence and witnessed the occurrence. The complainant Jagannath @ Bhagat lodged the FIR (Exhibit Ka-1) at the police station Asothar in the next morning at about 5.00 a.m, on which basis the police registered the case and proceeded to make the investigation.

4. The injured Jagannath @ Bhagat was medically examined at PHC Asothar, district Fatehpur on 13.10.1979 at about 11.30 a.m. The following injuries were found on his person :

“Multiple gun shot wounds in an area of 13” x 14" over the right side face (wounds of entry) lateral portion of the right side forehead and on right side head and back of the right side ear. In shape few are oval and few are rounded. The edges are inverted inner ragged and size varying from 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm to 0.2 x 0.1 cm.”

5. The doctor who medically examined the injured, was of the view that the injuries were caused by some fire arm, whose duration was half a day. He further opined that the injury was simple in nature.

6. No x-ray was done in spite of the advice of the doctor.

7. PW-2 Amar Singh investigated the case and after completing the investigation, submitted the charge sheet against the appellants.

8. The appellants Chhedu and Subedar were charged under Section 307, IPC whereas other two appellants Nandan and Shrikishan were charged under Section 307, IPC read with Section 34, IPC.

9. The appellants denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

10. During the trial, the prosecution examined only two witnesses to prove the charge. PW-1 Sohan Lal is the son of the complainant-injured, who was present alongwith the injured at the time of the incident. This witness has proved the FIR, Exhibit Ka-1 and also supported the prosecution story in the witness box. PW-2 Amar Singh is the investigating officer. He has proved the charge sheet and other formal papers and his evidence is of formal nature.

11. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has examined all the appellants under Section 313, Cr.P.C. The appellants have stated that they have been falsely implicated due to enmity.

12. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found that the sole statement of PW-1 Sohan Lal, which was duly corroborated by the medical evidence, was believable. The learned Additional Sessions Judge further found that there was moon light at the time of the incident and the eye witnesses were in a position to identif