S. C. DATTA, J. ( 1 ) CRIMINAL Appeal Nos. 241 of 1986 and 236 of 1986 are taken up together for hearing as they have arisen out of one and the same judgment. Dusmant Kumar Singh Deo and A. Maheswar Rao filed criminal appeal No. 237 of 1986 while Sanjit Kumar Jam filed criminal appeal No. 241 of 1986. All the above mentioned accused - appellants were tried before the Addi. Sessions Judge, Jeypore and on conclusion of the trial accused Dusmant Singh Deo was convicted under section 323. I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo R. I. for four, months while accused A. Maheswar Rao was convicted under section 324. I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo RI. for one year. Accused Sanjit Kumar Jam was convicted under section 341. I. P. C. but was released under section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Accused Dusmant Singh Deoand A. Maheswar Rao were also convicted under section 341, I. P. C. but no separate sentence was passed. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case lies in a short compass and may be stated as under. On 25-8-1985 at about 9 p. m. the then Block Development Officer. Kashipur (P. W. 2) was returning home along with the Co-operative Extension Officer (since dead ). When they reached near Harijan Sahi school, they were waylaid by the accused persons who dealt fist blows and thrusts on P. W. 2 and pushed him into a roadside drain threatening him with dire consequences. According to the prosecution the accused persons also dealt blows on the Co-operative Extension Officer. Thereafter they left the place. ( 3 ) AT about 12. 30 a. m. in the night the informant (P. W. 2) handed over the F. I. R. to the Officer incharge. Kashipur Police Station at Kashipur P. H. C. where he had gone for treatment. The doctor noticed various injuries on his person including a suspected fracture on a nasal bone. The fracture was confirmed by X-Ray examination Accused Maheswar Rao was also medically examined on the same night and found to bear abrasions on his right knuckle and right little finger which were possibly caused by a blunt weapon. On the basis of the F. I. R. lodged by the informant a case was registered and investigation was started. Finally. The fracture was confirmed by X-Ray examination Accused Maheswar Rao was also medically examined on the same night and found to bear abrasions on his right knuckle and right little finger which were possibly caused by a blunt weapon. On the basis of the F. I. R. lodged by the informant a case was registered and investigation was started. Finally. Charge - sheet was submitted and the acsused persons faced trial before the Addi. Sessions judge. ( 4 ) ON conclusion of the trial the accused persons were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. The defence was one of complete denial of the incident. It was alleged by the accused persons that they have been falsely implicated in the case due to previous enmity with the then B. D. O. Kashipur (P. W. 2 ). ( 5 ) HEARD learned counsel for both the sides. It appears that the conviction was based solely on the evidence of the B. D. O. (P. W. 2) who was the informant. It is the case of the prosecution that the incident took place on 25-8-1985 at about 9 p. m. when it was partly dark and drizzling. According to P. W. 2. the incident happened near Harijan Sahi school. Kasipur. The informant P. W. 21 says that accused Dushmant Kwnar Singh gave him a push while accused Maheswar Rao gave him a fist blow on his nose as a result of which he sustained bleeding injury and fell down in the drain. He has stated further that while he got up from the drain and was about to leave the place accused Sanjit Kumar Jam caught hold of him and threatened him not to shout. He also threatened him with dire consequences. It is in his evidence that accused Sanjit dragged him to his house. On reaching his residence he called his staff and Thana Baboo, who arrived at his residence. According to P. W. 2. the F. I. R. (Ext. 4) was handed over to Thana Baboo at his residence. He states categorically that Thana Baboo came to his residence at about 12 in the night. During cross - examination he was constrained to admit that he scribed the report (Ext. 4) at the hospital prior to his treatment by the doctor. He said that the doctor at Kashipur, P. H. C. , Tahasildar, Kasipurand O. I. C. Kasipur arrived at his residence. During cross - examination he was constrained to admit that he scribed the report (Ext. 4) at the hospital prior to his treatment by the doctor. He said that the doctor at Kashipur, P. H. C. , Tahasildar, Kasipurand O. I. C. Kasipur arrived at his residence. But he is contradicted. by the 1. 0. (P. W. 6) when he says that he met the informant for the first time in the P. H. C. on that night. The I. 0. (P. W. 6) says that he had not visited the residence of the informant on that night. In his examination-in-chief the 1. 0. (P. W. 6) says that he visited the spot on 26-8-1985 at about 3 a. m. after taking up the investigation. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that in view of the contradictory statements made by the informant (P. W. 2) and 1. 0. (P. W. 6), no reliance can be placed on the document Ext. 4. He further submits that the F. I. R. is also hit by section 162 Cr. P. C. I find much substance in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. ( 7 ) THE categorical statement of the informant (P. W. 2) is that accused Dusmant Singh gave him a push while. Maheswar Rao gave him fist blows on his nose, as a result of which he fell down in the drain. The doctor who allegedly treated him at Kasipur P. H. C. noticed as many as six injuries on various parts of his body. According to the doctor (P. W. 4), some of the injuries might have been caused by a blunt weapon. We find that on the same day he examined accused Maheswar Hao on police requisition and noticed two abrasions on his body. According to the doctor the injuries were simple in nature and might have been caused by a blunt weapon. The prosecution does not explain how accused Maheswar Rao sustained injuries on his person. Nor did it explain why the informant sustained so many injuries when the case is that one of the assailant gave a push and the other accused dealt a blow. This indicates that the prosecution has suppressed the actual incident. This makes the prosecution case highly improbable. Nor did it explain why the informant sustained so many injuries when the case is that one of the assailant gave a push and the other accused dealt a blow. This indicates that the prosecution has suppressed the actual incident. This makes the prosecution case highly improbable. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has not given true version of the case. It is in the evidence that accused Dusmant Singh and father of accused Sanjit Singh had sent representation against the conduct of the then B. D. O. (P. W. 2) to the higher authorities. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, this might have enraged the informant (P. W. 2 ). Resultantly he has falsely implicated the accused persons. ( 8 ) WE find from the evidence of P. W. 2 that the incident happened near the residential area. It has been stated that P. W. 2 raised hullah while the assault continued. We do not find that anybody of the locality coming forward to resections the informant. It is in his evidence that 10 to 12 persons were standing near the office of the Junior Engineer on the main road, but none of them came to the spot on hearing the hullah. As. indicated earlier, the prosecution case rests solely on the uncorroborated testimony of the informant (P. W. 2 ). In view of the discrepant nature of evidence and the fact that the prosecution has suppressed material facts, it would be risky to base conviction on the uncorroborated testimony of the informant (P. W. 2 ). Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I think, the learned trial Judge was not justified in convicting the accused person. The accused persons are, in my view, entitled to be acquitted. In the result, the appeals succeed and the order of conviction and sentence is set aside. Appeals allowed.