ORDER H.L. Capoor, J. - Mewa Ram and his sons Hazari and Yad Ram have preferred this application in revision against the judgment and order, dated 30-3-1971 of Sri R.S. Agarwal, 2nd Temp. Civil and Sessions Judge, Moradabad, dismissing the appeal and maintaining the conviction of the Applicants Under Sections 323 and 325, IPC and their sentence of two months' R.I. and four months' R.I. awarded by the learned Magistrate, the sentences, however, to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Pooran, complainant, resident of village Mankus, P.S. Bilari, distt. Moradabad, purchased a Gher from Kalloo, brother of Mewa Ram Applicant. This fact was not liked by the Applicants. The intervening wall between the Gher of the complainant and the house of the accused had fallen down. The Applicant had reconstructed it extending towards the Gher of the complainant. The extended portion was then removed by the complainant. On 13-10-1969, at about 11 o'clock in the morning the complainant Pooran had come back after pouching his field when the Applicants were said to have inflicted lathi and Kassi injuries on him. On an alarm being raised by the injured, Phool Singh, Mangal and Hira Lal were said to have reached there and it was on their intervention that the complainant was saved. Thereafter, the Applicants were said to have made good their escape. 3. The report of the incident was lodged by complainant Pooran at the police station on 13-10-1969, at 2 o'clock in the afternoon. After the investigation of the case being completed the police did not proceed with the case and thereafter the complainant filed a complaint. 4. Dr. J.P. Saxena, Surgeon Distt. Hospital, Moradabad medically examined Pooran on 13-10-1961, at 5.25 o'clock in the evening. The doctor found: 1. Lacerated wound 1"x 1/10" 1/4" deep on the right side of head 3-1/2" above right ear. 2. Lacerated wound 1-1/2" 1/4" 1/4" deep on back of head 4-1/2" above and behind left ear. 3. Traumatic swelling 3" 2" on back of right forearm 2-1/2" behind elbow joint and complained of pain in both shoulder. 5. The doctor had advised X-ray of the first three injuries and injuries Nos. 1 and 3 were found to be grievous, because right frontal bone and ulna bone were found fractured. The doctor was further of the opinion that all these injuries were caused by blunt weapon. 5. The doctor had advised X-ray of the first three injuries and injuries Nos. 1 and 3 were found to be grievous, because right frontal bone and ulna bone were found fractured. The doctor was further of the opinion that all these injuries were caused by blunt weapon. Their duration being fresh, i.e. within six hours. 6. The Applicants pleaded not guilty and denied to have participated in the incident. Their main defence was that they were falsely implicated in the case due to enmity. No defence evidence was, however, adduced on their behalf. 7. The prosecution in order to establish its case relied upon the statements of Pooran, Nanhey, Phool Singh and Shiv Lal as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Dr. J.P. Saxena (P.W. 5) and Dr. Prathipal Singh (P.W. 6) were the two doctors who medically examined the injured and X-rayed the injuries. The rest of the witnesses were merely formal. 8. Both the courts below after considering the evidence on record and placing reliance upon the statements of the said eye-witnesses of the occurrence and disbelieving the defence version arrived at the finding that the prosecution succeeded in proving the participation of all the Applicants in this crime. They accordingly convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid. 9. Learned Counsel for the Applicants has strenuously urged before me one main point which is that the doctor not having found any injury to have been caused with a sharp edged weapon like Kassi with which Hazari and Mewa Ram Applicants were said to be armed and inspite of a charge being framed against the Applicants u/s 324 read with Section 34, IPC, the two courts below did not record the conviction of the Applicants u/s 324 read with Section 34, IPC, it is obvious that the courts below did not believe the story about the Applicants Hazari and Mewa Ram having given a gating with Kassi to Pooran complainant. All the eye-witnesses of the occurrence categorically stated that all the three Applicants used their weapons, i.e. both Kassi and Lathi injuries were caused by them to the complainant. The doctor specifically stated that all the injuries found on the person of the injured could be caused only by a blunt weapon meaning thereby that he completely ruled out the possibility of the injuries being caused with a sharp edged weapon like Kassi. The doctor specifically stated that all the injuries found on the person of the injured could be caused only by a blunt weapon meaning thereby that he completely ruled out the possibility of the injuries being caused with a sharp edged weapon like Kassi. In the absence of any question being put to the doctor as to whether the lacerated wounds found on the person of the injured could be caused as a result of Kassi blows being given to the injured the contention of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State that the lacerated wounds found on the injured could have been caused with a Kassi cannot be accepted. Under these circumstances, Yad Ram Applicant alone being said to be armed with a lathi the possibility of all the injuries being caused to the injured by a lathi wielded by trim alone could not be ruled out, with the result that the participation of Hazari and Mewa Ram Applicants in the incident cannot be said to be proved beyond any reasonable doubt and in any the it is probablised by the Kassi in juices not being found on the person of the injured. In the circumstances, the Applicants Hazari and Mewa Ram are at least entitled to the benefit of doubt. 10. In the result, the application in revision so far as Had Ram Applicant is concerned is dismissed. His conviction and sentence are maintained. He is on bail. He shall surrender to his bail bonds immediately, failing which he shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence imposed on him. The application in revision in respect of Hazari and Mewa Ram Applicants, however, is allowed. Their conviction and sentences are set aside and they are acquitted. They are oh bail. They need not surrender and their bail bonds are discharged.