Judgment U. P. Singh, J. 1. The sole appellant has been convicted under Sec.323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment. The appellant was put on trial along with 7 olhers for various charges under sections 147, 323 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. All the 8 accused persons including the appellant were put on trial before the Addl. Sessions Judge and the case was not found proved against 7 of the co-accused and they were acquitted of all the charges. Also the appellant was acquitted for the charge under Sections 307 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code but he was convicted only under Sec.323 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It was alleged by the prosecution that while the informant (P. W.8)had gone to purchase cloths in the market he was assaulted by the appellant and others by lathi. 3. In defence the appellant pleaded false implications on account of some enmity and group politics of the village. It was suggested to the witnesses on behalf of the appellant that on account of election of village Mukhia the informant was carrying grudge against him because he had supported of the succeeding mukhia. 4. In all 13 witnesses were examined, out of whom 9 of them were either declared hostile or tendered, P. W.4 was a formal witness. The conviction was based on the evidence of P. Ws.6, 8 and 9. P. W.8 is the informant himself and p. W.9 is his son. An independent witness P. W.6 was a Chaukidar and according to his evidence he was not a witness of the occurrence but learnt from another Chaukidar of the village. The said Chaukidar who informed P. W.6 about the incident was not examined in this case. Again, neither the Doctor nor the Investigating Officer were examined in this case. No reasonable explanation has been put forward for their non-examination. P. W.8 is himself a person of bad anticident. He had once been externed from the district and when he was summoned for evidence in this case, he came from jail where he had been lodged in connection with some other case. However, the vital question is whether the informant sustained injuries in this occurrence. P. W.8 is himself a person of bad anticident. He had once been externed from the district and when he was summoned for evidence in this case, he came from jail where he had been lodged in connection with some other case. However, the vital question is whether the informant sustained injuries in this occurrence. It is stated that his injuries was examined in Chousa hospital but injury report was not proved in this case, although the trial court admitted that it was inadmissible piece of evidence but he did not attach importance to the fact that if the injury report was not proved in a case where the injured claimed to have been examined in a hospital, it would not be known as to in what circumstances he sustained injuries and what was the nature of injuries sustained by the injured. Whether he was injured at all has thus got to be inferred by his statement uncorroborated by the medical evidence. It is not a case that his injuries were not examined at all. 5. Thus in view of the evidence on record, the charge under Sec.323 of the Indian Penal Code is not established by any cogent and reliable evidence and the appellant is reasonably entitled to benefit of doubt. He is accordingly acquitted of the charge His conviction and sentence is set aside and the appeal is allowed. He is on bail and the bail bond is discharged. Appeal allowed.