R. K. PATRA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner was placed on trial in the court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur to face charge under Section 307, I. P. C. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge found the petitioner guilty under Section 324, I. P. C. , convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Against the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred appeal and the learned Sessions Judge while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner under Section 324, I. P. C. directed his release under Sec. 4 (3) of the Probation of Offenders Act. ( 2 ) PROSECUTION case is that on 4-2-1981 at about 6 p. m. , the informant Charan Bhoi along with his younger brother Mahadeb (P. W. 8) returned home from the brickkiln. After sometime P. W. 8 left for the village temple of Astasavbhu. It is the allegation of the prosecution that while P. W. 8 was returning from the temple, the petitioner suddenly appeared at the scene and by means of a katari dealt blows on his neck as well as on the right jaw causing bleeding injuries. After sustaining the injuries, he fell down. ( 3 ) PLEA of the petitioner was one of denial. ( 4 ) ALTHOUGH ten witnesses were examined by the prosecution, the Investigating Officer for the reasons best known to the prosecution was not examined. It is the case of the prosecution that the injured was examined by a doctor but the doctor was also not examined in course of trial. It appears from the impugned judgment of the learned Sessions Judge that he got the injury reports marked as Exhs. 7 and 8 on the basis of which he formed his opinion about the nature of injuries sustained by the injured P. W. 8. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner relying on a judgment of this Court in Babaji alias Braja Kumar Mohanty v. State, (1990) 3 OCR 266 contended that the Investigating Officer having not been examined in the case, the petitioner was seriously prejudiced in his defence. He also submitted that the learned Sessions Judge committed illegality in marking the injury reports without giving opportunity to the petitioner to explain the matter on account of which he was greatly prejudiced. ( 6 ) NON-EXAMINATION of the Investigating Officer in a criminal trial cannot be lightly overlooked. He also submitted that the learned Sessions Judge committed illegality in marking the injury reports without giving opportunity to the petitioner to explain the matter on account of which he was greatly prejudiced. ( 6 ) NON-EXAMINATION of the Investigating Officer in a criminal trial cannot be lightly overlooked. It is he who visits the place of occurrence, examines witnesses and reduces their statements into writing, conducts inquest, makes seizures and takes other steps to connect the accused with the crime, apprehends the accused and places him on trial. On being examined as a witness, the defence tries to bring out contradictions while cross-examining him and attempts to find out lacunal in the investigation. In a given case non-examination of the Investigating Officer may become fatal to the prosecution because of the fact that defence gets no other opportunity to elicit contradictions in the evidence of witnesses examined by him. It causes definite prejudice to the accused. The learned Counsel contended that there were many contradictions in the evidence of the injured which he could not elicit properly on account of non-examination of the Investigating Officer. As already indicated, the injury reports were marked as Exts. 7 and 8 at the appellate stage by the learned Sessions Judge. It is no doubt open to an appellate authority to take additional evidence but taking of such evidence at the appellate stage should not cause prejudice to the accused. Having marked the injury reports as Exts. 7 and 8 he could have examined the doctor which would have been in the interest of justice. ( 7 ) ON a careful consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that non-examination of the Investigating Officer as well as non-examination of the doctor at the appellate stage caused prejudice to the petitioner. Hence, the conviction cannot be sustained in law and is hereby set aside. With the setting aside of the conviction, the order of the learned Sessions Judge directing release of the petitioner on probation has become anfractuous. The petitioner is acquitted of the charge. Revision is accordingly allowed. Revision allowed.