Judgment R.M.Prasad, J. 1. The present revision application is directed against the judgment dated 4.2.1988 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 299 of 1986 by the Additional Sessions Judge XI at Patna whereby he has affirmed the conviction of the petitioners under Sec. 394, I.P.C. and also the sentence to undergo R.I. for two years passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patna on 30.6.1986 in G.R. No. 1743/83, Tr. No. 242/86. 2. The prosecution case is that on 4.5.1983 at about 8.30 p.m., the informant Anil Ranjan was going along with one Sultan Mian of village Isopur to his village Gonpura and when they reached near the Aluminum Factory on Hinduni Road, four persons came from a field near the road and started flashing torch-light on them and surrounded them. The informant claimed to have identified the petitioners and one Shekhar Rai. Accused Binod Mahto (petitioner No. 1) is alleged to have abused the informant and gave Chhura blow in his abdomen and the rest three are alleged to have assaulted him with Danta. It is further alleged that they also assaulted Sultan Mian. On Hulla people came there and took the informant or rickshaw to the Police Station and thereafter to the P.M.C.H. where he was medically treated. The cause of occurrence is stated to be that 10 to 12 days before there was some dispute over payment of tailoring charges. The police instituted the case and after holding investigation submitted charge sheet under Sec. 394, I.P.C. against the petitioners and one Shekhar Rai, who is absconding. 3. On pleading not guilty, the petitioners were tried in which prosecution examined seven witnesses and defence did not examine any body. The learned Judicial Magistrate by his aforementioned judgment convicted the petitioners under Sec. 394, I.P.C. and sentenced them for two years R.I. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said judgment, filed the aforementioned Criminal Appeal in which the said conviction and sentence nave been affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge. 4. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that out of seven witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 are formal witnesses and P.Ws. 5, 6 and 7 are hearsay witnesses. P.W. 4, who is the informant, is the solitary witness in relation to the alleged occurrence. 4. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that out of seven witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 are formal witnesses and P.Ws. 5, 6 and 7 are hearsay witnesses. P.W. 4, who is the informant, is the solitary witness in relation to the alleged occurrence. In the Fardbeyan it was alleged that he was in the company of Sultan Mian when the occurrence took place. It was also alleged that Sultan Mian was also assaulted by these petitioners but in paragraph 4 of his deposition at the time of cross-examination he stated that he does not know Sultan Mian. Sultan Mian has not been examined in this case not the injury report has been brought on the record. 5. It is true that the informant claimed to have identified these petitioners but in the circumstances aforementioned, it is difficult to rely upon his version. 6. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that four other charge sheet witnesses were also not examined which also deprived the defence from their cross-examination to prove their innocence. 7. It is well settled that reliance on the testimony of solitary eye-witness can only be placed for conviction if his behaviour is found to be natural and the witness is found reliable. A reference in this connection may be made to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sabitri Devi V/s. State of Bihar reported in 1996 (1) PLJR 226 . 8. There being serious discrepancies in the evidence of P.W. 4, in my opinion, it is difficult to place reliance on his testimony in order to convict the petitioners. 9. Mr. Binoy Kumar, learned Counsel for the State also fairly submits that it is difficult to place reliance on the sole evidence of P.W. 4 as in paragraph 8 of his cross-examination he himself stated that he first got Chhura blow whereupon he became unconscious and regained consciousness only in the hospital. Further, he stated that he does not know as to who assaulted him after he became unconscious. 10. Further, he stated that he does not know as to who assaulted him after he became unconscious. 10. In my opinion, in such circumstances it is difficult to uphold the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioners, particularly on account of non-examination of other charge sheet witnesses who can be said to be independent witnesses and non-bringing of the injury report on the record of the case. 11. The revision application is, thus, allowed and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioners are set aside.