V. GOPALASWAMY, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is preferred against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Phulbani Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 1985 convicting the petitioner u/s. 323, I. P. C. and sentencing him thereunder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. ( 2 ) THE gist of the prosecution case is that on 24-12-1980 at about 9 a. m. while the informant. Block Development Officer, Boudh, was working in his Block Office at Boudh the accused, a Contractor came to his office and demanded of' him to pay him money in relation to the contract work done by him and when the informant told him that no money were due to be paid to him as he did not do any work, the accused gave a slap to him and left the office and thereby rendered himself liable u/ss. 448 and 332,i. P. C. ( 3 ) THE accused pleads that the informant has foisted this false case against him, due to previous enmity. ( 4 ) ON a consideration of the evidence, the trial court while acquitting the accused of the offence under S. 448,i. P. C. , convicted him of the offence u/s. 332. I. P. C. On appeal preferred by the accused, the learned Sessions Judge, Phulbani acquitted him of the charge u/s. 332 I. P. C. but found him guilty u/s 323, I. P. C A perusal of the judgments of the courts below revealed serious infirmities in the prosecution case, which prompted me to reassess the prosecution evidence, though that is not done normally while exercising revisional jurisdiction. ( 5 ) THE prosecution has examined in all eight witnesses to prove its case. P. W 7 Kulamani Mohapatra is the Block Development Officer, who alleges that the accused had slapped him on the relevant morning. He is also the informant in the case. P. Ws. 1, 2,3, 4 and 6 were examined as independent eyewitnesses to the occurrence. P. W. 5 is the doctor, who examined P. W. 7 regarding the injuries sustained by him. P. W. 8 is the Investigating Officer. ( 6 ) THE evidence of the informant (P. W. 7) shows that during the relevant period the accused was a Contractor entrusted with certain works in his Block and that by the relevant date there was strained relationship between them. P. W. 8 is the Investigating Officer. ( 6 ) THE evidence of the informant (P. W. 7) shows that during the relevant period the accused was a Contractor entrusted with certain works in his Block and that by the relevant date there was strained relationship between them. This aspect is to be kept in mind while appreciating the evidence of P. W. 7. ( 7 ) IT is in the evidence of P. W. 7 that on the relevant morning at about 9 a. m. , while he was in his office, the accused came and demanded of' him to pay him money in relation to the contract work done by him when he (PW7) stating that he had not done any work refused to pay him any money and then the accused suddenly slapped him on his left cheek and fled away from the office. P. W. 7 stated that due to the slap he sustained a bleeding injury on his mouth. P. W. 7 is a Block Development Officer and he promptly lodged the first information report. So if really he sustained a bleeding injury on his mouth due to the slap given to him, he would not have forgotten to slate about it in the first information report and more so as the first information report was lodged one and half hours after the alleged assault on him. P. W. 7 does not state even before the investigating officer about his sustaining a bleeding injury on his mouth when he was examined by him. Thus P. W. 7 omitted to state about his sustaining a bleeding injury on his mouth both in the first information report as well as in his statement before the Investigating Officer and the same are material omissions which seriously impeach the credibility of P. W. 7 when he alleges about the accused slapping him. Though in his evidence P. W. 7 stated that he received a slap on his left cheek, he merely stated in the first information report that he received a slap, without indicating where he received the same. So the evidence of the informant regarding the assault on him by the accused suffers from the above referred infirmities. ( 8 ) P. W. 5 is the doctor, who examined the informant on police requisition. So the evidence of the informant regarding the assault on him by the accused suffers from the above referred infirmities. ( 8 ) P. W. 5 is the doctor, who examined the informant on police requisition. The doctor deposes that on such examination he found two bruises on the face of the informant, one on the central part of the upper lip of the mouth and the second on the central part of the left cheek. The informant deposed only about his sustaining a bleeding injury on his mouth, but he did not state that he sustained bruises on his left cheek and on his upper lip. The doctor, PW. 5 examined the informant on 24-12-1988 at 11-30 a. m. The alleged occurrence had taken place on 24-12-1980 at about 9 a. m. So the doctor examined the injured about two and half hours after he received the injuries. When the doctor states that the age of the injuries was about 24 hours at the time of his examination, it does not fit in with the case of the informant that he received the injuries only about two and half hours prior to the time of doctor's examination. From the evidence of the doctor it is not very clear whether the two injuries were possible by one slap. It is difficult to understand as to how a slap on the left cheek could cause a bruise on the central part of the upper lip. So the prosecution ought to have elicited from the doctor whether the slap on the left cheek of the informant could have caused the bruise on the central part of the upper lip of the mouth. Hence, it is seen that the medical evidence in the case also does not corroborate the version of the informant regarding the assault on him by the accused. ( 9 ) PROSECUTION examined P. Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 as independent eye-witnesses to the occurrence, but all of them uniformly stated they do not know anything about the occurrence. None of them was declared hostile and there was no cross-examination of any of these witnesses to elicit if they were in any way interested to suppress the truth to favour the accused. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 as independent eye-witnesses to the occurrence, but all of them uniformly stated they do not know anything about the occurrence. None of them was declared hostile and there was no cross-examination of any of these witnesses to elicit if they were in any way interested to suppress the truth to favour the accused. There is nothing on record to show that any of the said prosecution witnesses were in any way interested in the accused or that any of them was hostile towards the informant. On the other hand, from the evidence of P. W. 7 it is seen that Ghasiram Naik (P. W. 2) was the Office Peon and Motilal Meher (P. W. 3) was an independent Contractor and so they would be more inclined to support the informant. When according to the informant, there are several eye-witnesses to the occurrence of assault on him, but none of them is prepared to corroborate the informant's version regarding the occurrence, and on the other hand they state that they do not know anything about the occurrence, and there is no material from the side of the prosecution even to suggest that the so-called eye-witnesses were in any way interested in suppressing the truth, it necessarily follows that under these circumstances, the informant's version regarding the occurrence of assault on him cannot be accepted as true. So, in the present case, as the independent witnesses P. Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6, whom the prosecution claimed as eyewitnesses, deposed that they do not know anything about the occurrence, the informant's version that the accused had slapped him on the relevant morning cannot be believed to be true. ( 10 ) ON a consideration of the entire evidence on record, as discussed above, I find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case that the accused had slapped the informant on the relevant morning. On a perusal of the judgments of both the courts below, I find that their appreciation of evidence is most superficial and it would result in miscarriage of justice if the order of conviction u/s. 323, I. P. C. is allowed to stand. ( 11 ) IN the result, I find the petitioner not guilty of the offence u/s. 323, I. P. C. and he is, therefore, acquitted thereunder. ( 11 ) IN the result, I find the petitioner not guilty of the offence u/s. 323, I. P. C. and he is, therefore, acquitted thereunder. I hereby set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed against him u/s. 323, I. P. C. by the Sessions Judge, Phulbani. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. Revision allowed.