whom i.e. appellant no. 2, namely, Tirath Bhusan Mahtha who died six years ago, were convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years under section 324 of the IPC read with section 34 of the IPC, and three years R.I. under section 27 of the Arms Act. Counsel said that from the case history, mentioned aforesaid, initially it is indicated that though serious charges were initially made, the offences were reduced to section 324 of the IPC and therefore it needs to be considered in that light. It is also to be considered that the offence is of the year 1992. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that there are many discrepancies in the prosecution case. First and foremost, he had pointed out that the time of occurrence had not been properly mentioned. Counsel said that P.W. 7, who is the informant of the case, had mentioned and indicated that the occurrence is of around 12 O' Clock in the night. P.W. 9 has said that he had gone to the place of occurrence initially then he went home and subsequently he had returned and on alarm, he had gone to the place of occurrence at around 2 a.m. and further P.W. 10 had said that he had returned to the pond at around 1 a.m.. So counsel pointed out that from the times indicated by these witnesses, it ranges from 12 to 2 a.m. and therefore there is considerable variation in the time of occurrence and therefore it raises doubt about the allegations that have been made. He had also said that though the informant had mentioned in the fardbeyan that the occurrence is of the year 1992, thereafter in deposition he has stated that the occurrence is of the year 1993 and thereafter gave the categorical dates for going to the different hospitals, indicated as in 1993, therefore, he said that not only the time, the year of the occurrence had also not been properly given by the informant himself. Counsel had also argued that in terms of Exhibit, there is only one Exhibit i.e. Ext.-1 which is the fardbeyan and the informant had signed on this. However, the person who had written the fardbeyan i.e. Niranjan Mahto, who is otherwise P.W. 9 had not signed on the fardbeyan itself, which is rather strange. He had also argued that though the dispute had taken place at night. The timing of the incident has also been placed over a certain period. Therefore, given the fact, it was nevertheless ranging from time 12 to 2 a.m. it was still obviously in the dark night that the incident occurred and therefore there could be no proper identification of the person or persons who actually fired the
