JUDGMENT O.P. Mehrotra, J. - Appellants Ramesh war, Prem Narain, Jagdish Narain, Rai Nat and Badri Narain have filed this appeal against the order dated 5.9.81 passed IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Faizab convicting them under Sections 147, 3 and 307/149 I.P.C. For the offence under Section 147, I.P.C. each of them was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one ye for the offence under Section 379 I.P. they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each and for the offence under Section 307/149 I.P.C. each of them was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months each. All the sentences were made to run concurrently. According to the prosecution case on the morning of 18.5.76 injured Prabhu Nath Tewari (P.W. 1) was going from his village to Faizabad for attending the court of Sub- Divisional Officer, Bikapur in a case under Section 133, Criminal Procedure Code on a bicycle armed with gun. There was long drawn enmity between him and the accused persons. At about 7 a.m. when he reached near the tubewell of village Adhiyari, all the five accused persons came out of the field armed with Pharsa, Ballam and Lathis and started assaulting him. On his alarm several persons including Ram Narain Dubey (P.W. 2), Prabhakar Mishra and Ram Kesh Tewari arrived at the spot whereupon the accused persons made good their escape. While going they took away his cycle, gun, ten catridqes, gun licence, papers relating to the case, cash sum of Rs. 68/- a gold ring and a Government receipt for Rs. 456/-. The complainant has received a number of injuries. Ram Narayan Dubey and others placed him on a cot and took him to Tarun Hospital. On the way at Tarun crossing, Ram Nayan Dubey prepared written report ex. ka. 1 at the dictation of the complainant. The complainant was then taken to Tarun P.H.C. where Dr. S.U. Ahmed (P.W.3) examined him and provided first aid at 7.30 a.m. As the complainant had not been brought through police, the Doctor wrote a letter to Station Officer Hydergarh giving information regarding this injury case. ka. 1 at the dictation of the complainant. The complainant was then taken to Tarun P.H.C. where Dr. S.U. Ahmed (P.W.3) examined him and provided first aid at 7.30 a.m. As the complainant had not been brought through police, the Doctor wrote a letter to Station Officer Hydergarh giving information regarding this injury case. In this letter he mentioned ten lacerated wounds on the body of the complainant and further mentioned that besides the above lacerated wounds, there were various contusion marks all over the body and that the patient was not in a good condition. Ram Nayan Dubey took the written report to the police station at 10 a.m. A case under Sections 147, 148 307 and 379, I.P.C. was registered against the accused persons and was investigated by S.I.Ram Adhar Saroj (P.W.4). After investigation, he submitted charge- sheet against all the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty. They denied their complicity and stated that they had been falsely implicated on account of enmity. Accused Rameshwar and Prem Naidui stated that they came to know in the village that the complainant had been beaten and robbed by some unknown persons in the dark hour of the night and had falsely implicated them simply on account of enmity and suspicion. In support of its case, the prosecution examined complainant Prabhu Nath Tewari (P.W. 1), Ram Nayan Dubey (P.W.2), Dr. S.U. Ahmed (P.W. 3) S.I. Ram Ahdar Saroj (P.W. 4) Dr. S.K. Srivastava, Radiologist (P.W. 5) and Head Constable Hanumant Singh (P.W. 6). The defence examined Shiv Kumar Singh (D.W. 1) who was a Pharmacist in the P.H.C. Tarun and who stated that there was no entry in the out-door register of the dispensary to show that any prescription in the name of Ramesh was prepared in May 1978. This witness was examined with a view to show that the statement of P.W.2 Ram Nayan Dubey that he was going to the dispensary to take medicine for his nephew Ramesh was false. The learned Sessions Judge believed the statement of Pharmacist (D.W.1) and held that his statement proved that no body of the name of Ramesh was getting treatment at the P.H.C. Tarun in those days. The learned Sessions Judge believed the statement of Pharmacist (D.W.1) and held that his statement proved that no body of the name of Ramesh was getting treatment at the P.H.C. Tarun in those days. He further held that the statement of Ram Nayan Dubey (P.W. 2) to the effect that he was going to the hospital for bringing medicine for his nephew Ramesh becomes very doubtful, having regard to the statement of the Pharmacist. After excluding statement of Ram Nayan Dubey, we are left with the sole testimony of complainant Prabhu Nath Tewari. The Sessions Judge believed the statement of the complainant and convicted the appellants on his sole testimony. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that this was not a case where implicit reliance could be placed on the testimony of the complainant and that the probability that the complainant was way-laid, assaulted and robbed by some unknown persons cannot be entirely ruled out. He also pointed out to certain infirmities in the prosecution evidence having made it highly doubtful.. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the State and having carefully examined the material on the record, I find considerable force in the above contention. In the first place it is highly doubtful that the first information report was prepared at the dictation of the complainant and that it bears his signatures. The learned Sessions Judge has himself observed at page 4 of his judgment that on comparison of the signatures of the complainant on the first information report with those on his statement before the court it appears doubtful that the first information report bears his signatures. However, as the complainant was not put any question on this point, the Sessions Judge observed that the matter simply remained doubtful and it could not be said with any precision that the first information report did not bear the signatures of the complainant. In this connection it may be mentioned that the original statements of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 were found missing from the record and it is not known as to how and by whom they were removed from the record. Both the parties naturally put the blame on the other side for removing these statements. In this connection it may be mentioned that the original statements of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 were found missing from the record and it is not known as to how and by whom they were removed from the record. Both the parties naturally put the blame on the other side for removing these statements. Under orders of the court the Sessions Judge has reconstructed these statements with the help of the carbon copies of statements supplied to the parties. The copies of statements supplied by the complainant have been duly proved by recording evidence of the counsel for the complainant and the court clerk who recorded the statements. The counsel for the complainant during proceedings for reconstruction of the record before the Sessions Judge stated that he had furnished that carbon copy of the statement of P.W. 1 which has been received by him from the court and the court clerk Sri Nand Kishore Pandey further stated that the said statement was recorded by him and the carbon copy produced by the complainant's counsel was the carbon copy of the same statement recorded by him. As regards the statement of P.W. 2, the complainant's counsel had obtained a certified copy from the court and he filed a photostat copy thereof. As regards the carbon copies of the statements supplied on behalf of the accused the court clerk denied that the said copy had been prepared by him. Sri Hansraj Tewari, father of accused Jagdish Narain, Raj Narain, and Badri Narain, stated before the Sessions Judge during reconstruction proceedings that the carbon copies of statements received by him from his counsel in the lower court had been given by him to his counsel in the High Court Sri Laloo Sharma and when the Sessions Judge asked him to file copies of the statements he went to his counsel and whatever copies were supplied by his counsel were handed over by him to the Sessions Judge. He however, could not say as to whether the carbon copies furnished by him to the court for the purposes of reconstruction of the record were the same which he had received from the court at the time of recording of evidence. It is, however, noteworthy that the statements of P.W. 3, P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 are also in the hand-writing of the same Clerk viz. It is, however, noteworthy that the statements of P.W. 3, P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 are also in the hand-writing of the same Clerk viz. Nand Kishore Pandey who had recorded statements of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2. A comparison of the handwriting of the statements of P.W. 3, P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 with the carbon copies of the statements furnished by the parties does not leave any doubt that the carbon copy of the statement of P.W. 1, furnished by the counsel for the complainant was a genuine one while the carbon copies of the statements of P.W. and P.W. 2 which were furnished on behalf of the accused for the purpose of reconstruction were not in the handwriting of Nand Kishore Pandey and as such they were not genuine copies but might have been prepared by his counsel for other purposes. At this time I need not enter into the question as to whether a deliberate fraud was committed by the accused or whether there was some bona fide mistake in the preparation of the copies. There is only slight difference in the copies furnished by the two sides. The copy of the statement of P.W. 1 furnished by the complainant shows that in his cross-examination P.W. 1 had stated that "when Ram Shanker Jagdamba etc. enquired from him he told them as to who had assaulted him. On the other hand, this portion of the cross-examination as recorded in the copy furnished by the accused is to the effect that "I had enquired from Ram Shanker, Ram Nayan Dubey, Jagdamba and others as to who had assaulted him." This statement does not fit in with the context and it was evident that this copy had been wrongly prepared with a view to show that the complainant P.W. 1 did not know as to who had assaulted him and that is why he asked witnesses Ram Shanker, Ram Nayan Dubey, Jagdamba etc. as to who has assaulted him. as to who has assaulted him. Sri S.S. Sharma alias Laloo Sharma, counsel for the appellants did not dispute before me that the handwriting of the carbon copies of the statements of P.W. 1 and (P.W. 2) furnished on behalf of the accused at the time of reconstruction of the record, does not tally with the handwriting of the court clerk, while the handwriting of the carbon copy of the statement of P.W. 1 furnished by the complainant tallies with the hand-writing of Court Clerk Nand Kishore Pandey. Consequently we have to take the statements of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 as reconstructed by the Sessions Judge as correct. It may be that the original statements of P.W.1 and P.W. 2 were cot removed from the record at the instance of the accused and an attempt was also made by them to file carbon copies after making the above material changes in the statements. Still I find that the statement of P.W. 1 was not such on which implicit reliance could be placed and it was not possible to convict the appellants on the basis of the evidence on the record. Now coming to the first information report, there is inherent and intrinsic evidence to show that it does not bear the signatures of complainant Prabhu Nath Tewari and that the name at the end of the first information report was written by Ram Nayan Dubey who was scribe of the first information report and that it does not at all bear signatures of Prabhu Nath Tewari. The name "Prabhu Nath Tewari" appears in the first line of the body-writing of the first information report and also at the end of the first information report and the two writings are evidently in the same hand, which means that the scribe of the first information report himself signed at the end of the first information report and it is altogether wrong to say that the first information report was signed by the complainant Prabhu Nath Tewari. I have already mentioned above that the learned Sessions Judge himself made an observation in this connection. At that time the original statement of P.W.1 was before him and he could compare the signatures of P.W.1 on this statement with the signatures on the first information report. I have already mentioned above that the learned Sessions Judge himself made an observation in this connection. At that time the original statement of P.W.1 was before him and he could compare the signatures of P.W.1 on this statement with the signatures on the first information report. Unfortunately this comparison cannot be made by me now as the original statement of P.W.1 has been removed from the Court record. Still, as already observed by me above, there is intrinsic evidence to show that the complainant did not at all sign the first information report and it was the scribe of the first information report who himself signed the same in the name of Prabhu Nath Tewari, or it may be that he merely mentioned the name of Prabhu Nath Tewari at the end of the first information report but thereafter omitted to obtain his signatures. Learned counsel for both the parties frankly conceded before me that the original first information report did not bear the signatures of the complainant. P.W.1 Prabhu Nath Tewari evidently made a false statement that the first information report was signed by him and that it beats his signatures. It the first information report does not bear the signatures of the complainant, it becomes highly doubtful that it was prepared at his dictation. In this connection it is also noteworthy, that the condition of complainant Prabhu Nath Tewari was quite serious at that time, so much so that Dr. S.U. Ahmad did not make a record of all the injuries on his letter (Ex. Ka-2) and after recording ten injuries he simply mentioned that the patient was not in a good general condition and sent the letter to the Station Officer for further necessary action. It is not known as to why Ram Nayan Dubey did not obtain the signatures of Prabhu Nath Tewari on the first information report and why he himself made the signatures of the complainant on it. If Ram Nayan Dubey could go to the extent of fabricating the signatures of Prabhu Nath Tewari on the first information report the probability that he prepared the first information report on his own cannot be ruled out. (P.W.1) Prabhu Nath Tewari even went to the extent of stating that the first information report bore his signature, while evidently it did not bear his signatures. (P.W.1) Prabhu Nath Tewari even went to the extent of stating that the first information report bore his signature, while evidently it did not bear his signatures. The above circumstance would show that the first information report was not a genuine document and that it did not bear the signatures of the complainant. According to the first information report the assailants attacked the complainant with Pharsa, Ballam and Lathies, and according to the statements of both the witnesses, all these weapons were actually used in the assault. However, injuries as noted by Dr. S.U. Ahmad in his letter to the Station Officer after examining the injuries at 7.30 a.m. show that he noted ten lacerated wounds and thereafter mentioned that there were various contusion marks all over the body, and that the patient was not in a good general condition. It is said that thereafter the first information report was lodged at 10 a.m. and a constable was sent to the hospital with injury report and then the same Dr. S.U. Ahmad examined the injuries of the complainant in detail at 11.30 a.m. This injury report is ex. ka 3 and it shows that the complainant was found to have received 31 injuries including three incised wounds (injuries nos. 6, 15 and 27). It has also been noted that fresh bleeding was present in these incised wounds. It could be understood that the doctor had not conducted a detailed examination at the time when he examined the injuries at 7.30 a.m. and wrote the injury letter. It is, however, noteworthy that even at that time the doctor noted ten lacerated wounds and further mentioned that there were various contusion marks all over the body, but did not mention anything about any incised wounds. If it was a fact that the complainant had actually received three incised wounds as noted in the detailed injury report (Ex. ka. 3), it does not stand to reason that he would have omitted to note the incised wounds, at the time of preparing the letter ex. ka.2, especially when fresh bleeding was present in all the incised wounds. In any case the doctor should have noted that besides the lacerated wounds noted by him there were various incised wounds and contusion marks all over the body. The fact that there was no mention of any incised wound in the letter (ex. ka. ka.2, especially when fresh bleeding was present in all the incised wounds. In any case the doctor should have noted that besides the lacerated wounds noted by him there were various incised wounds and contusion marks all over the body. The fact that there was no mention of any incised wound in the letter (ex. ka. 2) goes to show that in all probability the complainant had not received any incised wound, but as it had been mentioned in the first information report that the complainant had been assaulted by Pharsa, Ballam and Lathies, an attempt was made either to manufacture the incised wounds or to get fictitious entries of incised wounds made in the second injury report of collusion with the doctor. The use of Pharsa and Ballam was, therefore, highly doubtful. It is noteworthy that all the accused persons are residents of same village as the complainant. No doubt there was enmity between the parties which is said to be the motive for this assault. The first information report, however, shows that after assaulting the complainant, the accused persons decamped with the complainant's cycle, gun, cartridges, gun licence and certain papers, besides cash and a gold ring. This shows that this was a case of robbery along with assault. Common experience shows that in cases of assault by known persons on account of enmity, the assailants generally do not loot property. It was all the more improbable that the accused persons would have committed robbery of articles such as gun and cycle. There is nothing to show that they were professional dacoits and were involved in other similar incidents. It could be understood that they could have assaulted the complainant on account of enmity, but it does not stand to reason and appears to be improbable that they would have looted his gun and cycle. As they were residents of the same village it was difficult for them to keep the gun and cycle etc. with them. This goes to show that in all probability the complainant had been waylaid, assaulted and robbed by some unknown Badmashes or by some persons in the darkness of the late hours of the night so that they could not be identified and the appellants were implicated on account of enmity and suspicion. with them. This goes to show that in all probability the complainant had been waylaid, assaulted and robbed by some unknown Badmashes or by some persons in the darkness of the late hours of the night so that they could not be identified and the appellants were implicated on account of enmity and suspicion. As already mentioned above, the prosecution has simply examined the complainant and Ram Nayan Dubey who was the scribe of the first information report, and not a single independent witness has been examined, although it is said that there were other persons who had actually witnessed this occurrence and two such witnesses viz. Prabhakar Misra and Rakesh Tewari were named in the first information report. As already mentioned above, the learned Sessions Judge himself found the presence of Ram Nayan Dubey highly doubtful. It is said that he was going to take medicine for his nephew Ramesh from the hospital. He specifically stated in the cross-examination that he got a prescription prepared in the name of Ramesh and took medicine on the basis of that prescription. The statement of Pharmacist D.W. 1 clearly goes to show that no prescription in the name of Ramesh was prepared. If Ram Nayan Dubey was riot going to the hospital for taking medicine for his nephew, his very presence at the spot becomes highly doubtful. Moreover as already mentioned by me above, he went to the extent of fabricating the signatures of complainant Prabhu Nath Tewari on the first information report. As such no reliance could be placed in his testimony. For the reasons mentioned above, it is also not possible to place implicit reliance on the testimony of complainant Prabhu Nath Tewari. This entitle the appellants to the benefit of doubt. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction of appellants Rameshwar, Prem Narain, Jagdish Narain, Rai Narain and Badri Narain and the sentences awarded to them are hereby set aside and they are acquitted of the offences under Sections 147, 379, 307/149 I.P.C. They are on bail They need not surrender to their bail bonds which are hereby discharged.