Judgment Bimalendu Narayan Sinha, J. 1. This application in revision is directed against the judgment and order passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 1981 (152 of 1980) confirming the conviction and sentence against these accused petitioners passed by Shri B.K. Sinha, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Gaya in G.R. Case No. 2524 of 1976, Tr. No. 859 of 1980. The accused petitioner Girija Tiwary has been convicted under Sec.326/323 read with Sec.109 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months ; accused petitioner Ramjatan Pandey and Babban Pandey have been convicted under Sec.379 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month, and accused petitioner Ram Jatan Pandey has been further convicted under Sec.323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. But the sentences passed against Ram Jatan Pandey under the two counts have been directed to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution against these two accused-petitioners, briefly stated, is that the accused petitioner Girija Tiwary had mortgaged S. P. No. 225 appertaining to Khata No. 437 in village Utrain within Konch Police Station to the first informant Hari Mohan Mistry (P. W. 2) who came in possession of that land as a mortgagee ; that in the year 1976 the first informant had grown paddy on that land but on 17-11-1976 at about 2 p.m. when he (the first informant) returned from the market, he learnt that these accused persons alongwith Ram Pravesh Tiwary were harvesting paddy crop of that field ; that the first Informant went to that field along with his grandmother and protested ; that thereupon the accused petitioner Girija Tiwary asked the other accused to assault and kill him on which accused Ram Pravesh Tiwary (not petitioner) assaulted the first informant with Garansa on his head and accused Raujatan Pandey assaulted him with Lathi; that on alarm being raised by the grandmother of the first informant, some persons arrived there and thereafter the accused persons fled away from the field and that thereafter the first informant on the same day went to the Konch Police Station and lodged information about the occurrence at 6.30 p.m. 3. On the information lodged by the first informant, the formal F. I. R. (Ext. On the information lodged by the first informant, the formal F. I. R. (Ext. 1/1) was drawn and after usual investigation, the Police submitted charge-sheet against these accused petitioners and one Ram Pravesh Tiwary. As Ram Pravesh Tiwary was absconding, his case was split up from the case of these accused petitioners and the trial proceeded against these accused petitioners, 4. At the trial the accused-petitioners pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. The specific defence of the accused petitioner Girija Tiwary was that he had redeemed the mortgage by paying off the amount of mortgage money about 3-4 years back and he came in possession of that land, though the father of the first informant did not return to him the mortgage bond saying that the same was misplaced and not being traced out and that the accused petitioner had grown paddy on S. P. No. 221 in the village and had harvested the paddy crop and left the same in the field and on the alleged date of occurrence at about 4 p. m. he learnt that the first informant of this case and others were removing those paddy bundles and he accordingly went there and protested but the first informant and his persons assaulted him and when his son came there, he too was assaulted by the first informant and his men ; and he filed a case at the Police Station with regard thereto and that the present case has been filed by the first informant with altogether false allegations as a counter blast of his case. 5. At the trial the prosecution examined altogethre 8 witnesses out of whom P.W. 7 Basudeo Mistry, is a formal witness, P.W 5 is the Investigating Officer and P.W. 8 Dr. Nageshwar Prasad is the Doctor who examined the injuries on the person of the first informant, P.W. 2. Hari Mohan Mistry, the first informant, P.W. 1 Ram Kripal Mahto, P.W. 3 Banarsi Mahto P.W. 4 Doman Sao and P.W. 6 Raghu Mistry were examined as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. The two courts below have accepted the prosecution case against these accused petitioners and disbelieved the defence taken by these accused petitioners. 6. Hari Mohan Mistry, the first informant, P.W. 1 Ram Kripal Mahto, P.W. 3 Banarsi Mahto P.W. 4 Doman Sao and P.W. 6 Raghu Mistry were examined as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. The two courts below have accepted the prosecution case against these accused petitioners and disbelieved the defence taken by these accused petitioners. 6. The learned Counsel appearing for the accused petitioners has assailed the judgment of the appellate court on the ground that the judgment does not contain findings of the appellate court on the point of law as well as facts involved in the case and that the appellate court has not applied his mind to decide the issues involved in the case and there is complete absence of discussion of evidence with regard to the issues involved in the case which has resulted in miscarriage of Justice and, hence, the judgment is fit to be set aside. 7. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused petitioners that though in court, the P.Ws, stated that the accused petitioners harvested the paddy crop standing in the P.O. field and took away the same but the first informant did not say so in the written report filed by him at the Police Station rather the case of the first informant in his written report (Ext. 1) was that he saw the accused petitioners harvesting paddy standing in the P.O. field to which he (the first informant) protested and thereafter they assaulted him as a result of which he fell down and his grandmother began raising hulla which attracted P.Ws. Raghunath Mistry, Ramkripal Mistry and others and the accused petitioners fled away ; and on this basis it has been submitted that on the allegation in the written report, no offence under Sec.379, I. P, C. is made out as there was no allegation of removal of the paddy crop from the field and, hence, the subsequent evidence with regard thereto by the P.Ws. alleging that the accused petitioners removed the harvested paddy ought not to have been believed by the appellate court and the appellate court ought to have held that the charge under Sec.379, I. P.C. was not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused petitioners. alleging that the accused petitioners removed the harvested paddy ought not to have been believed by the appellate court and the appellate court ought to have held that the charge under Sec.379, I. P.C. was not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused petitioners. True it is that this point was taken on behalf of the accused petitioners in the trial Court also and no finding has been recorded by the appellate court with regard thereto. But even on the allegations in the written report (Ext. 1), the offence of Sec.379, I.P.C. is made out as is clear from the Illustration (A) of Sec.378, I. P.C. which illustrates the offence of theft as follows : Sec.378 (Illustration a) A cuts down a tree on Zs ground, with the intention of dishonestly taking the tree out of Zs possession without Zs consent. Here as soon as A has served the tree in order to such taking, he has committed theft. So I find no substance in this point taken on behalf of the accused petitioners. However, it has been correctly submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused petitioners that the appellate court has not given his own findings regarding the matters at issue in the case. 8. The accused petitioner Girija Tiwary was charged under Sections 326/109, 323, I.P.C. and the charge reads as follows : That you on or about the 14th day of November, 1976 at Vill. Utarain Bandh P. S. Konch abetted the commission of the offence of assault committed by Ram Pravesh Tiwary and Ram Jalan Pandey and which was the direct consequence of your abetment and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sections 326/109, 323 of the I. P.C. and within my cognizance and I hereby direct that you be tried by the said court on the said charge. 9. The trial court found the accused petitioner Girija Tiwari guilty under Sections 326/323 read with Sec.109 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence of accused petitioner Girija Tiwary thereunder. 9. The trial court found the accused petitioner Girija Tiwari guilty under Sections 326/323 read with Sec.109 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence of accused petitioner Girija Tiwary thereunder. Accused Ram Pravesh Tiwary who is said to have assaulted the first information with Garansa on his person and caused grievous injury on his head was not tried alongwith accused petitioner Girija Tiwary as he remained absconding and, therefore, no finding could be recorded as to whether that grievous injury on the head of the first informant had been Inflicted by the accused petitioner Girija Tiwary. In the absence of that finding, the accused petitioner Girija Tiwary cannot be held guilty of abetting commission of offence under Sec.326 of the Indian Penal Code by accused Ram Parvesh Tiwary and convicted under Sec.3?6 read with Sec.109 of the Indian Penal Code. 10. Moreover, it appears that the defence has challenged the time and manner of occurrence as given by the prosecution. The time of occurrence as disclosed by the first informant in his written report is 2 p.m. and the time of occurrence as disclosed by the accused petitioner Girija Tiwary in his written report of the counter case (Ext. B) is 4 p. m. The appellate court came to the conclusion that the fact that the P.Ws. do not explain injuries on the person of the accused petitioner Girija Tiwary and Ram Pravesh Tiwary cannot lead to the conclusion in this case that the P.Ws. have not stated the truth and have suppressed some facts in their evidence because taking into consideration the prosecution case and the defence with regard to their respective time of occurrence it cannot be said that the injuries on the person of the accused petitioner Girija Tiwari and that of accused Ram Pravesh Tiwary were inflicted at the time of occurrence in question of the instant case. 11. From the evidence of P.W. 8 Dr. Nageshwar Prasad it is evident that he had examined the accused petitioner Girija Tiwary and the accused Ram Pravesh Tiwary on the same day and at about same time when he had examined the person of the first informant Hari Mohan Mistry. Moreover, according to the evidence of this Doctor and Ext. 11. From the evidence of P.W. 8 Dr. Nageshwar Prasad it is evident that he had examined the accused petitioner Girija Tiwary and the accused Ram Pravesh Tiwary on the same day and at about same time when he had examined the person of the first informant Hari Mohan Mistry. Moreover, according to the evidence of this Doctor and Ext. A and A/1 it is established that number of injuries were found by him on the person of accused petitioner Girija Tiwary and accused Ram Pravesh Tiwary and injury No. 1 on the head of Girija Tiwary had been caused by a sharp cutting weapon and was grievous in nature. It also appears from the evidence of this Doctor that he had examined injuries on the person of the accused petitioner Girija Tiwary and accused Ram Pravesh Tiwary and that on the person of the first informant Hari Mohan Mistry at 10 a. m. ; and in the opinion of the Doctor the injuries on the persons of all these three persons had been caused within 18 hours. Moreover, according to the prosecution the instant occurrence is said to have taken place at about 2 p. m. and it appears from the formal first information report that the written report of the first informant with regard thereto was filed by the first informant at the Police Station at 6.30 p. m. i.e. 4 1/2 hours after the alleged time of occurrence. The place of occurrence is situated at a distance of only six miles from the Police Station. The place of occurrence is situated at a distance of only six miles from the Police Station. There appears no reason as to why the written report could be filed at 6.30 p. m. at the Police Station when the occurrence took place at 2 p. m. The accused petitioner Girija Tiwary has filed the written information regarding the occurrence at 7.15 p. m. on the same day alleging that the occurrence had taken place at 4 p. m. which is also supported by the evidence of the Doctor, P. W. 8 according to whose evidence, the injuries on the persons of the accused petitioner Girija Tiwary accused Ram Pravesh Tiwary and the first informant had been caused within 18 hours from the time of examination i.e. 10 a.m. From all these facts and circumstances it appears quite probable that the first informant as well as accused petitioner Girija Tiwary and accused Ram Pravesh Tiwary sustained injuries at the same time. This aspect of the matter has been altogether missed by the appellate Court as he has not applied his mind to and discussed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 12. In this connection he has, no doubt, discussed the law on the point but he has not applied his mind to the evidence to give his own findings if the accused petitioner Girija Tiwary and the first informant had sustained injuries at the same time. 13. The judgment of the appellate Court should have been in accordance with the provisions of Sec.387 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code) which reads as follows : Sec.387.-Judgments of Subordinate Appellate Court- The rules contained in Chapter XXVII as to the judgment of a Criminal Court of original jurisdiction shall apply, so far as may be practicable, to the judgment in appeal of a Court of Sessions or Chief Judicial Magistrate : Provided that, unless the appellate Court otherwise directs, the accused shall not be brought up, or required to attend, to hear judgment delivered. 14. The judgment of the subordinate Appellate Court should comply so far as may be practicable with the provisions of Sec.354 (1) of the Code. 15. In the instant case the appellate Court has not even recorded his own findings if on the evidence produced by the prosecution the charges framed against the accused petitioners were proved beyond reasonable doubt. 14. The judgment of the subordinate Appellate Court should comply so far as may be practicable with the provisions of Sec.354 (1) of the Code. 15. In the instant case the appellate Court has not even recorded his own findings if on the evidence produced by the prosecution the charges framed against the accused petitioners were proved beyond reasonable doubt. 16. For these reasons, I find that the judgment and order passed by the learned appellate Court cannot be sustained. 17. This revision is accordingly allowed, the conviction and sentence against these petitioners is hereby set aside and the accused petitioners stand discharged of the bail bonds.