Judgment Amir Das, J. 1. This application in revision filed under Secs. 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.11.1984 passed by Mr. Lala Radhakumar Sinha, the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Saran, Chapra in Criminal Appeal No.2 of 1981 confirming the order of conviction and sentence dated 20. 12. 1980 passed by Mr. Amarendra Kumar Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class in G.R. Case No. 490 of 1976 Tr. No. 1754/80 under Secs. 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code with alteration of conviction under Sec. 323 to 323/109 I.P.C. in respect of petitioner No.1, Ramashish Rai. 2. The informant Mahanta Rai lodged a case against these petitioners with an allegation that on 15.3.1976 while he was driving the Tire Cart having loaded the same with Dari, Kalin, Tripal etc. and when his Tire-Cart reached in front of the house of the petitioner all the petitioners abused and assaulted him. It has been alleged that petitioner No.4 Shura Rai having caught him dragged down from the Cart and gave lathi blow, petitioner No.3, Baijnath Rai caused injury on his leg with Bhala and petitioner No.2 Dukhan Rai assaulted him by means of Farsa. A counter case was also lodged by one of the petitioners against the prosecution. Both the cases were investigated by the police and both the parties were put on trial separately. 3. In support of its case the prosecution has examined six witnesses out of whom P. Ws. 2 and 5 are on the point of occurrence, P.W. 4 is the doctor and rest are not material. However, the Investigating Officer was not examined. The defence also adduced the evidence in support of the denial of the occurrence. The trial court having considered the evidence found the petitioner No.2 Dukhan Rai guilty for the offence under Sec. 324 and rest petitioners guilty for the offence under Sec. 323 I.P.C. and accordingly convicted them thereunder. Petitioner No.2 Dukhan Rai has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months whereas rest three were sentenced to undergo R.I. for sixmonths for the respective offences. 4. Being aggrieved they preferred appeal but they lost the same. The learned appeal but court altered the offence under Secs. Petitioner No.2 Dukhan Rai has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months whereas rest three were sentenced to undergo R.I. for sixmonths for the respective offences. 4. Being aggrieved they preferred appeal but they lost the same. The learned appeal but court altered the offence under Secs. 323 to 323/109 I.P.C. with regard to the petitioner No.1 Ramashish Rai and with that alteration he dismissed the appeal and endorsed the conviction and sentence. Hence this application in revision before this Court. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that this case was instituted in the year 1976 and the petitioners have faced the rigors of the prolonged trial from court below to this court. He has also contended that the oral evidence is not consistent to the medical evidence, but this aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the learned lower courts. In the last he has pointed out that in cross case the prosecution party got acquittal. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has supported the correctness and propriety of the order of conviction and sentence. 6. So far case of assault against petitioner No.1 Ramashish Rai is concerned, it is of no evidence. However, the learned lower appellate court has found him guilty for the offence of assault with the aid of Sec. 109 of the Indian Penal Code. The evidence is not so clear that all the time the victim was assaulted at the instance of the petitioner. Thus the case of this petitioner stands on a different footing. 7. Now I will take up the case of Baijnath Rai, Petitioner No.3, the allegation against him is that he has given Bhala blow on the left leg of the informant, but such assault with Bhala has not been supported either by the informant or by P. W. 2. As per the statement made in the court, this petitioner is said to have assaulted him with a Rod. Considering this aspect of the matter such allegation is found not above suspicion So far as the case of assault with Farsa by Dukhan Rai is concerned a simple injury 2" x¼ " x 1/8 " on the left volt of skull was found. In the opinion of the doctor this injury could be manufactured if one would take the risk. In the opinion of the doctor this injury could be manufactured if one would take the risk. The evidence of P.W. 2 shows that the Farsa blow was given with both the hands meaning thereby with a great force and in such condition the injury must be deeper than the injury found by the doctor. This aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the court below. 8. In view of the discussion made above, I come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the petitioners beyond all reasonable doubts and therefore, I call for the doctrine of benefit of doubt in favour of the petitioners. Consequently, the benefit of doubt is accorded in their favour. Resultant they are acquitted for the charges for which they have been convicted. I find force in the application in revision which has to be allowed. In the result, this application in revision is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence is hereby set aside.