K. NARAYAN, J. ( 1 ) THE accused appellants were committed to the Court of Sessions under sections 147, 307/149 and 3231149 I. P. C. One accused, namely, Sushil Kumar was also indicated for offence under sections 148, 307 and 323/149 I. P. C. They were tried after frame of charge by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr in S. T. No. 343 of 76 of the said District. By judgment and order dated 9. 2. 1979, Suresh Kumar was found guilty and convicted of the offence under section 323, I. P. C. while Sushil Kumar was convicted under section 324, I. P. C. Former was given benefit of First Offenders Probation Act and the later was sentenced to R. I. for one year. The other accused Swarup Singh, Shakuntala and Rajendra were acquitted. Consequently the charges under sections 147 and 148, I. P. C. ( 2 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and along with him gone through the record of the case. It appears that there were two First Information Reports on 29/3/1972-one by Swamp Singh, who has been later on accused in this case and now stands acquitted and the other was by one Smt. Lachcho, wife of Chunni Lal. Both the First Information Reports mention time of occurrence as about 8 a. m. The contentions put forward by Smt. Lachcho were that she was inside the house and her daughter had gone to give fodder to the cow teathering outside the house. Roopwati, daughter was abused by Sushil Kumar accused in this case with a threat that he would see her possibly meaning a reference to some earlier animosity between the parents of the two. According to the First Information Report Roopwati replied that there was a bad blood between the parents and why should there be any exchange of threats between the children. Whereupon Suresh Kumar went inside the house and gave a lathi blow on the head of Roopwati, Meanwhile, father of Roopwati, who was ailing was going to attend the call of nature with a Lathi in hand. He also objected saying that why should there be any concern with the daughter and he may be assaulted, whereupon Sushil Kumar gave a knife blow to Chunni Lal. Hearing the scuffle Smt. Lachcho came out and also came Rajendra, Banshi and Shakuntala. He also objected saying that why should there be any concern with the daughter and he may be assaulted, whereupon Sushil Kumar gave a knife blow to Chunni Lal. Hearing the scuffle Smt. Lachcho came out and also came Rajendra, Banshi and Shakuntala. Swarup Peshkar, father of Sushil and Suresh held Chunni Lal when Shushil Kumar tried to give a knife blow but some how Chunni Lal tilted himself and the blow came upon Swarup Peshkar. This report is shown to have been lodged at the police station at 9. 30 A. M. ( 3 ) BEFORE this another First Information Report was lodged by Swarup Singh evidenced by Ex. Kha 1 It conveyed that he had gone to collect fodder and work on the field when Shakuntala, their daughter came out of the house and was assaulted by Smt. Lachcho wife of Chunna, Chunna himself, Kalua, Roopwati, Daughter of Chunna and Ram Saran, on hearing the alarm rushed to the spot. During scuffle Shakuntala was bitten by Laxmi and there were also other injuries of fists and kicks. The case was tried and evidence led. The prosecution evidence consisted of P. W. 1 Roopwati, P. W. 2 Lachcho, P. W. 3 Abdul Hakim and P. W. 4 Brahama Dutt Sharma. Out of these, the prosecution case was sought to be proved only the first two while the third was not favourable to the prosecution version and the fourth was the Investigating Officer. ( 4 ) IN the statement of P. W. 1 Roopwati, and P. W. 2 Lachcho, there is not a word about the above said first blow of Lathi upon Smt. Roopwati by Suresh. In the absence of any statement in this behalf about the assault upon the person of Smt. Roopwati the so-called medical report of Dr. D. P. Nigam referring to a traumatic swelling in the head region of Roopwati is of no value. Unless cause of injury is known mere presence of injury even if it was there and duly proved would not carry any weight. Then again, the story set up in the First Information Report was that Chunni Lal was held by Swarup Singh and at the same time Sushil tried to give him a knife blow and this knife blow meant for Chunni Lal was missed and had caused injury to Swarup Singh. Then again, the story set up in the First Information Report was that Chunni Lal was held by Swarup Singh and at the same time Sushil tried to give him a knife blow and this knife blow meant for Chunni Lal was missed and had caused injury to Swarup Singh. The possibility of such an occurrence may be there but the material aspect is that Swarup Singh, who was medically examined by Dr. D. P. Nigam had only one lacerated wound 4-1/2 cm x 1/2 cm muscle on the front side of head. It may be that at times in bony regions lacerated wound is confused with incised wound but converse is not correct. All the more Dr. D. P. Nigam was not examined in this case and medical reports have not been properly proved. It is true that both the parties had admitted the genuineness of these reports but that is not proper evidence. The medical report prepared by the Medical Officer is just a memorandum, which can be used by him for refreshing his memory. It is not a document, which can be read for or against any person as such. It can only be used for the purposes of refreshing the memory. I will not dilate upon this question as nothing much will turn upon it. ( 5 ) THE mere fact that the prosecution version in this case in respect of such an injury upon the person of Swarup Singh was totally false is indicative of the fact that the first information or the allegations and other evidence tendered by the prosecution were unworthy of credence and the prosecution was probably more guided by the fear that there was going to be a prosecution against them and some case should be cooked up in order to save their skin. ( 6 ) IN the circumstances, the conviction recorded by the Sessions Judge cannot be maintained and the accused appellant should get the benefit of doubtful nature of evidence. The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the Sessions Judge are hereby set aside. The accused appellants shall stand acquitted of the charges. They are on bail. They need not surrender and their bails and bond are hereby cancelled and sureties are discharged. .