sequence of events regarding the second part of the incident wherein, the witnesses claimed that the two accused persons Sobran and Durvin were asked to surround Sanju; the accused Omkar and Jagvir Singh(accused appellant) went towards the house of Omkar and climbed on to the roof; that Sanju climbed to the roof of Ram Naresh’s house and then, the gunshots were fired at him by accused Omkar and Jagvir Singh from the terrace of Omkar’s house is on the face of it a piece of fiction without an iota of truth. 1120. He urged that conviction of the accused appellant is totally unjustified because the testimony of the so-called eyewitnesses is unreliable on the face of the record. Learned counsel thus implored the Court to accept the appeal and quash the impugned judgment and acquit the accused appellant by giving him the benefit of doubt. Submissions on behalf of the Respondent-State: - 21. Per contra, Ms. Garima Prasad, learned Additional Advocate General representing the State of Uttar