Judgment L.P.N.Shahdeo, J. 1. This revision is directed against the judgment, dated 11.3.1986 passed by Sri N.N. Sinha, 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih, in Cri. Appeal No. 99/1984, 19/1986 by which the judgment of conviction passed by Sri. R.J. Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bermo at Genughat, was maintained, but sentences was modified in the following circumstances. 2. It appears that petitioner No. 1. Meghlal Tewarys sentence under sections 324 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code was set aside but his sentence u/s. 342 of the Indian Penal Code was confirmed but he was ordered to be released u/s. 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on execution of bond of Rs. 2,000.00 (two thousand) with one surety for keeping peace and to be of good behaviour for a period of one year. 3. The sentence of petitioner No. 2, namely, Nageshwar Tewary under sections 324 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code was set aside and he was also released in respect of offence u/s. 342 of the Indian Penal Code on execution of bond u/s. 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the same terms and conditions indicated above. 4. The sentence of petitioner No. 3, Badri Tewary for the offence u/s. 325 of the Indian Penal Code for a period of one year rigorous imprisonment was maintained. His sentence in respect of offence u/s. 324 of the Indian Penal Code was set aside and his sentence u/s. 342 of the Indian Penal Code for a period of one month R.I. was maintained by the appellate Court and he was not given benefit of u/s. 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. The occurrence had taken place on 1.6.1982 at about 6.00 P.M. P.W. 5 is the injured. The allegation was that the petitioners had caused injury on left knee by tangi, on head and both the legs. Meghlal Tewary is said to have assaulted with lathi. 6. The doctor had found all together four injuries who was examined as P.W. 8. 7. It was submitted that genesis and manner of the occurrence of the prosecution case was not supported by the P.Ws. and the medical evidence also does not support the prosecution case and the Investigating Officer of this case has not been examined. 8. 6. The doctor had found all together four injuries who was examined as P.W. 8. 7. It was submitted that genesis and manner of the occurrence of the prosecution case was not supported by the P.Ws. and the medical evidence also does not support the prosecution case and the Investigating Officer of this case has not been examined. 8. It appears that the conviction of the petitioner in the appellate stage has been substantially set aside and the sentence has been maintained, only in respect of some offence as indicated above. 9. It appears that out of the three petitioners, two have already been released on execution of bond under sec. 360 of the Criminal Procedure. 10. It is admitted position that the occurrence had taken place on 1.6.1982 at about 6.00 P.M. and during the course of that occurrence petitioners are said to have caused injuries but it appears that somewhat surprising and unconvincing that P.W. 8 who has been examined, as doctor, has given his opinion with regard to the injuries which does not tally with each other. Although, the injured person has received injuries at the same time and in the same occurrence. The doctor has stated that injury Nos. 1 and 2 are simple in nature caused by sharp cutting weapon within 12 hours but at the same time he has stated about the injuries Nos. 3 and 4 that injuries Nos. 3 and 4 are grievous in nature and were caused within 24 hours. 11. I fail to understand as to under what circumstance the persons have received injuries in the same occurrence at the same time and how could be differences in the age of those injuries received in course of the same occurrence, same transaction and at the same time? This creates doubt about the whole prosecution case and manner of occurrence. It can be conveniently argued .that all the injuries were not caused at a time in the same occurrence, in view of the medical evidence as claimed by the prosecution. The medical evidence goes at the root of the prosecution case and makes the whole case doubtful. 12. No body has come to say in this case that the doctor has given such nature of evidence only to help the accused persons nor he has been cross-examined by the prosecution on that point. The medical evidence goes at the root of the prosecution case and makes the whole case doubtful. 12. No body has come to say in this case that the doctor has given such nature of evidence only to help the accused persons nor he has been cross-examined by the prosecution on that point. There fore, the medical evidence does not support that the entire injuries were caused in the same occurrence and at the same transaction. The occurrence might have happened on that date but not in the manner as alleged by the prosecution in view of the medical evidence and the finding of the appellate Court. In this view of the matter, the petitioners ought to have been given benefit of doubt for the offence alleged against them. 13. In the result, this revision is allowed. The impugned judgment of the Trial Court and that of the Appellate Court are accordingly, set aside.