JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant, Mohan Lal, in this case was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Ganganagar under sec. 307 I.P.C By his judgment, dated, June 23, 1976, the learned sessions Judge acquitted the appellant of the charges under section 307 I.P.C. and instead convicted him under section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for four months. He also convicted the appellant under section 323 I.P.C. and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one month. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case is that Shiv Bharat (P.W. 1) after closing his business at about 9-30 P.M. was on his way back to his house and that when he reached near the house of Loku Ram, the appellant came from behind and struck a gandasa blow on his head. It is alleged that Jagdish (P.W. 2) and Roshanlal (P.W. 3) witnessed the occurrence. 3. Relying on the statement of PWs. Shiv Bharat and Jagdish Chand, the learned sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the assailant of Shiv Bharat that night was none-else then the appellant and the latter had inflicted a gandasa blow to Shiv Bharat. Consequently, he convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. 4. After bearing learned counsel on both side, and examining the evidence on record, I am of opinion that the prosecution cannot be said to have proved the charge framed against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. It will be seen that the prosecution in this case has with held the most important document in the case i.e. the F.I.R. lodged at the instance of PW. Jagdish Chand. In the deposition in the court Shiv Bharat injured admitted in the hospital he went to the police station to lodge a report about the occurrence and that he actually lodged a report and duly signed it The ,;aid report has not been produced in evidence. This raises grave doubt against the prosecution story. 5. The prosecution has produced Ex. P/I, a statement of Shiv Bharat, obviously recorded under section 161 Cr. P. C. as the F. I. R. in the case. The very first sentence in the statement, Ex. P/1, would show that the F.I.R. in the case had already been registered and that this statement was being recorded by the Investigating officer under section 161 Cr. P/I, a statement of Shiv Bharat, obviously recorded under section 161 Cr. P. C. as the F. I. R. in the case. The very first sentence in the statement, Ex. P/1, would show that the F.I.R. in the case had already been registered and that this statement was being recorded by the Investigating officer under section 161 Cr. P.C. The story given in this statement would show that the appellant was accompanied by another person and that both of them were armed with sticks. Shiv Bharat has gone back on that statement in his deposition in as much as he would now have us believe that none else accompanied the appellant. There are other discrepancies the deposition of shiv Bharat as compared to his statement Ex. P/l and Ex. D/1 during the investigation. In the statement, Ex. D/1, he told a magistrate during the investigation that the other companion of the appellant was armed with a gandasi. In trying to explain this deposition, he testified that he had not made the statement Ex. D/I that manner before the Magistrate. He further stated that Loku Ram, in front of whose house the occurrence bad taken place, had witnessed the occurrence. Loku Ram has not been examined as a witness in this case. 6. P.W. Roshan, the other alleged eye-witness of the occurrence has testified that it was the appellant himself, who had informed him about the occurrence and taken him to the spot where Shiv Bharat injured was laying. Roshanlal further stated that there after, they had called Jagdish P.W. 2 who carried the injured to the hospital. In other words, Roshanlal would hive us believe that Jagdish arrived at the scene of occurrence much later than they had reached there. 7. It will thus be seen that the evidence on record does not carry conviction at all. Loku Ram, in front of whose House, the occurrence had taken place and who could be the test witness in the case, has not been examined as a witness by the prosecution. Jagdish Chand the only witness of the prosecution case appears to have arrived at the scene of occurrence after the infliction of the injuries to Shiv Bharal As for the evidence of Shiv Bharat, he has been shifting his stand from time to time. The F.I.R. in the case has been suppressed by the prosecution for reasons best know to it. The F.I.R. in the case has been suppressed by the prosecution for reasons best know to it. I must therefore hold that the case has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 8. In conclusion therefore, I allow this appeal set aside the impugned order of conviction and sentence and instead acquit the appellant. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds ate hereby discharged.Appeal Allowed. *******