witnesses does not inspire confidence. 37. Indisputably, Sanju received a single gunshot injury which proved fatal. Considering the significant disparities and discrepancies in the evidence of Ram Prakash(PW-1) and Ram Naresh(PW-5) regarding the identity of the assailant who actually fired at Sanju(deceased), we feel that the conviction of accused appellant Jagvir Singh on the basis of such flimsy and wavering evidence is not at all justified. The trial Court as well as the High 19Court committed glaring error while holding that Ram Prakash(PW-1), Sultan Singh(PW-2) and Ram Naresh(PW-5) were eyewitnesses to the incident and that they saw the accused appellant along with accused Omkar firing at Sanju(deceased). These findings are unsustainable on the face of the record in view of the analyses and discussion of evidence made above. 38. Consequently, the appellant deserves to be acquitted giving him the benefit of doubt. Hence, the judgment dated 25th November, 2003 and order of sentence