Judgment S.N.Pathak, J. 1. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 20-2-2001 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge VI, Purnea, in Cr. Appeal No. 40/1994 - 17/2000, confirming the judgment of the, trial Court dated 22-4-1994 rendered by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class in GR case No. 1138/84, trial No. 715/94. Revisionist No. 1, Bande Lal Sah was convicted under Secs. 323/34. IPC and was sentenced to undergo SI for 3 months and he was also convicted and sentenced to one month SI under Sec. 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act. Revisionist No. 2, Subodh Sah, was convicted under Sec. 325. IPC and was sentenced to undergo RI for one years. He was further convicted under Sec. 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act and sentenced to undergo SI for one month. Sentences passed against the revisionists were directed- to run concurrently. 2. The fard-beyan of the informant Bhola Sah, gave rise to the case wherein it was alleged that on 12-6- 1984, these two revisionists were grazing Mung crops in his field situated in village Charari. When the informant protested to the grazing in the field and was about to take cattle-heads to the pound the two revisionists overpowered him and assaulted him with dabia and lathi, Dabia was wielded by Bandelel Sah and Sudodh Sah dealt lathi blow on him resulting in breaking of his five teeth. When the cattleheads were being taken to the pound by the informant, these two revisions is called out other accused who also subjected the informant to assault. Two other accused persons facing trial were acquitted by the appellate court although convicted by the trial court. 3. The accused-revisionists took the defence of false implication. 4. The prosecution had examined in all 5 witnesses to prove its case. PW. 5 was the formal witness who brought on record the case diary from page 1 to 30 (exhibit 5). PW 4 was the doctor who examined the informant and found several abrasions and swellings on the body including bruises. Injury No. 4 referred to fracture of four upper incisor teeth and two lower incisor teeth. All injuries except injury No. 4 were simple caused by hard and blunt substance. PW 1 was the informant himself. PW 2 and 3 were the socalled eye-witnesses. 5. Injury No. 4 referred to fracture of four upper incisor teeth and two lower incisor teeth. All injuries except injury No. 4 were simple caused by hard and blunt substance. PW 1 was the informant himself. PW 2 and 3 were the socalled eye-witnesses. 5. It was submitted by the revisionists lawyer that the fard-beyan of the informant shows that the alleged occurrence took place in the village Charari. whereas witnesses in -Court said that the occurrence took place in a field at village Akbarabad. So. P.O. has been changed. Moreover the revisionists were not supplied with the copy as mandated under Sec. 207. Cr. P.C. So, they were prejudicial in their defence and that is why. they failed to draw the attention of PWs to their purported statements made by them to the police although the case diary was exhibited in Court. Since the accused-revisionists were not supplied with the copy they were unable to cross-examine the witnesses regarding the contradictions between their statements made to the police and the same made in the Court. Nonexamination of the 10 also affected the defence of the revisionists because they were unable to draw the attention of the 10 towards the actual place of the occurrence. Besides the aforesaid submissions, it was submitted that there was no evidence regarding previous conviction of the revisionists. Hence they were entitled to get the benefit under Sec. 360. Cr. P.C. or Probation of Offenders Act. 6. State lawyer referred to the case diary which was exhibited in Court. The Court can also peruse the case diary in order to find out whether any contradiction regarding the statement of the PWs as also in order to find out what, is the place of the occurrence and what is the objective evidence with respect to the same. At para 6, the IO described the place of occurrence and he stated that PO fell in village Akbarabad, which was shown to him by the informant himself. The informant also showed to him the papers relating to his field. This PO was over plot No. 125, Khata No. 91 having area 2.2. acres. 7. So, of course, there is discrepancy between the statement of the informant in his fard-beyan and the same made by him in Court and the las description of the PO at para 6. The informant also showed to him the papers relating to his field. This PO was over plot No. 125, Khata No. 91 having area 2.2. acres. 7. So, of course, there is discrepancy between the statement of the informant in his fard-beyan and the same made by him in Court and the las description of the PO at para 6. Informant fixed the place of the occurrence in village charari and the 10 had given the distance between Charari and village Akbarabad as 1/2 K.M. So, this difference of 1/2 K.M. between the PO village and the village Charari becomes vital in order to discredit the prosecution case. In a criminal case, place of occurrence time of occurrence. and manner of occurrence are three main vital ingredients which must be proved by unimpeachable and positive evidence. It is not understandable why the informant failed to reconcile this discrepancy between his case as stated in the fard-beyan and the same as made during the course of trial. The nonsupply of the copy under Sec. 207, Cr. P.C. to the accused revisionists is also a vital aspect of the case which, of course, may amount to prejudicing the accused revisionists. 8. No conviction can be had if the prosecution failed to prove the place of occurrence by unimpeachable evidence. So, if the two Courts, below recorded a mechanical order of conviction. I think they were in legal error. 9. Hence this revision is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence is set aside and the accused revisionists stand acquitted.