S. C. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) CONVICTED of an offence under Section 307, I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo R. I. (seven) years, the accused has preferred this appeal from Jail. ( 2 ) ACCUSED and injured (P. W. 8) belong to the same village and are in litigating terms. ( 3 ) AT about 7. 30 A. M. on 23/5/1987, P. W. 7 Ward Member of Balia Sahi, Samil Dhatikidihi reported at Tiring Police-station which is at a distance of 15 K. Ms. to South West of the village Makar Majhi of his village intimated him near his residence at about 6. 30 A. M. in the morning that at Dhatikidihi on road side he found a man bleeding having cut injuries on his neck and right hand. When P. W. 7 went to the spot he found the same. When Called, he looked at him and on being asked, with much difficulty said his name to be Choki,. On again being asked he told that Durga is his assailant. He could not state his address or cause of assault. After that requesting the persons present to guard him, he came to the Police-station to submit the report. P. W. 9 the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police reduced the oral information of P. W. 7 to writing at Tiring Police- station as the Officer-in-charge was absent and registering a case, he rushed to the spot to reach there at 8. 30 A. M. to find P. W. 8 the injured lying with the injures; He found injuries on neck, right hand wrist and chest of the injured (P. W. 8) and he was not able to talk. He sent for the Police-jeep to remove the injured to hospital and brought him in the jeep to Rairangpur hospital and got the injured admitted. He requested Sub-divisional Magistrate for recording the dying declaration of the injured and an Executive Magistrate recorded the same on 23/5/1987 after the injuries were stitched and due treatment was given to the injured. ( 4 ) THERE is no doubt that P. W. 8 sustained injuries on 23/5/1987 on his neck and other parts of body and was removed to Rairangpur hospital where he was cured. Nature of injuries are such that it would not require any evidence to prove that some one has caused the injuries on him. ( 4 ) THERE is no doubt that P. W. 8 sustained injuries on 23/5/1987 on his neck and other parts of body and was removed to Rairangpur hospital where he was cured. Nature of injuries are such that it would not require any evidence to prove that some one has caused the injuries on him. From the nature of injuries, it can safely be inferred that the person causing the injuries is guilty of an offence of attempt to murder. Only question for consideration is whether appellant is the author of the injuries on P. W. 8. ( 5 ) BACKGROUND of this assault is litigation between accused and P. W. 8 who belong to the same village. Each one has initiated criminal litigation against the other. Accused filed criminal case in respect of land dispute and P. W. 8 initiated criminal litigation alleging that accused has assaulted him. In cross-examination of P. W. 8 suggestion has also been given by accused this effect - But nature of the criminal litigations has not been revealed by the prosecution although P. W. 9 the Investigating Officer stated that from Lawyer of P. W. 8, he has ascertained about the litigation. ( 6 ) ENMITY is a double edged weapon. The same may be the motive to implicate the adversary and it may also be the motive for assault. To use it as a circumstance for believing the story of assault, gravity of the litigation and period of its continuance are to be kept in view. Prosecution not having proved either. I am not inclined to rely on the same to be a motive for the accused to brutally assault at a place far away from their village. ( 7 ) EVEN in absence of proof or motive, a person can be convicted if the offence is brought home against him. As regards the occurrence, P. W. 8 the injured is the only witness. According to him, Dalima bus stand is at a distance of 20 miles from his village. Datikidihi Nulla was at a distance of only five miles from the village. P. W. 8 started early in the morning from his village to catch bus at Dalima to come to Rairangpur to attend morning court. He was to board the bus at about 5. 30 A. M. If this is accepted, the time of assault becomes material. Datikidihi Nulla was at a distance of only five miles from the village. P. W. 8 started early in the morning from his village to catch bus at Dalima to come to Rairangpur to attend morning court. He was to board the bus at about 5. 30 A. M. If this is accepted, the time of assault becomes material. No evidence has been adduced to that effect. P. W. 8 stated that accused came on a cycle and assaulted him by a hunter. From the injury report, no hunter mark is found on the body of P. W. 8. All the three injuries found are incised wounds. Thus, I am inclined to hold that P. W. 8 has exaggerated the assault on him. ( 8 ) FIRST Information report was lodged by P. W. 7. He stated that orally he informed and the Police Officer rushed to the spot According to him next day the written F. I. R. (Ext. 2) was prepared. He has been declared hostile. According to P. W. 7, P. W. 4 informed him about the injured. P. W. 3 stated that P. W. 8 came to village and asked for water. He went with P. W. 4 to call the Grammakshi, who came there. This Grammakshi has not been examined. According to him, P. W. 7 went to Police-station and Police came and took P. W. 8 in the jeep. P. W. 9, 1. 0. stated that he came to the village at about 8. 30 A. M. and then sent for the jeep. After jeep came, he took P. W. 8 to Rairangpur. According to Doctor (p. W. 6) he examined the injured at 10. 30 A. M. ( 9 ) RECORDING of First Information Report by P. W. 9 immediately has been stated by P. W. 9 which is however, retracted by P. W. 7 the informant. Story given in the First Information Report has not been supported by P. W. 7 himself. Other witnesses also do not state a word that P. W. 8 gave this name to P. W. 7 or that he stated his assailant to be Durga. Even if this is accepted that Durga, of his village caused injury on him. P. W. 9 has not described how he suspected the assailant to be the author of the crime to arrest him on 13/7/1987 at Rairanpur. Even if this is accepted that Durga, of his village caused injury on him. P. W. 9 has not described how he suspected the assailant to be the author of the crime to arrest him on 13/7/1987 at Rairanpur. He does not speak that he went to village of the accused or searched his house to locate hunter, pharsa or the cycle. ( 10 ) ONLY other material to link accused with the crime is Ext. 4 which in stated to have been recorded by an Executive Magistrate on 23/5/1987 itself. This document is dated 23/6/1987. Scribe of the document has not been examined. This was produced in Court of Sub-divisional Magistrate on 28/7/1987. Except P. W. 9 no other witness has stated about recording of this statement. Even P. W. 8 has not stated about such a statement. In the charge-sheet dated 23/7/1987, Magistrate has not been named as a witness. There is no test identification parade of the accused. ( 11 ) LEARNED Sessions Judge relying upon evidence of P. W. 8 only has convicted the accused. When prosecution case is that a person saw the accused assaulting but the same has not been proved, when F. I. R story has not been proved, I am inclined to hold that on account of litigation and enmity, P. W. 8 has connected the accused which has not been proved. ( 12 ) BEFORE closing, I cannot but observe that conduct of the Investigating Officer and the persons whose statement he recorded require probe in accordance with law so that persons shall not suffer in hands of Police Officer for defective investigation or culprits would not escape on that amount. ( 13 ) IN the result, appeal is allowed. Accused is acquitted. He be set at liberty at once. Appeal allowed.