Judgment 1. On behest of Janki Mali (PW 10), while Bhagelu Sah was prosecuted for the offence under Sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Fulena Sah was prosecuted for the offence under Sec. 325, IPC, all the four appellants including Bhagelu Sah, Fulena Sah, Haricharan Sah and Dhanaj Sah were also prosecuted for the offence under Secs. 452 and 323, IPC. 2. The factual matrix - As the appellants had put nad and khunti allegedly on the premises of Janki Mali, an altercation ensued between them preceding the time of incident, and it was alleged that shortly thereafter, in the night, at about 9 p.m. the appellants came on his premises threw night meal and on protest assaulted him. It was also alleged that while Bira Mali suffered injuries at the hands of Fulena who dealt lathi blows on him. Bhagelu Sah threw acid on the person of Paras Mali for which he suffered burn injury on his person. The family members too were assaulted by them and on these accusations, the police was set in motion, pursuant to which investigation commenced. During investigation, Police Officer recorded statements of witnesses under S. 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, visited place of occurrence, got the injured examined by the doctor and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge-sheet before the Court. The appellants on eventual commitment of the case to the Court of Session, were put on trial. Altogether 12 witnesses were examined, including the injured, Police Officer and one formal witness and host of other witnesses. The defence too examined two witnesses ostensibly to counter allegations attributed to the appellants. The defence of the appellants both before the trial Court and this Court had been that Paras Mali suffered burn injuries on his person due to fall of boiled water on his person during scuffle between the family members, and the trial Court on consideration of the evidence placed on the record, while negatived contentions raised on behalf of the appellants, finding Bhagelu Sah guilty under S. 324, IPC, sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year. All the appellants suffered conviction also under Ss. 323 and 452, IPC and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months and two years respectively on these counts. However, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. All the appellants suffered conviction also under Ss. 323 and 452, IPC and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months and two years respectively on these counts. However, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has taken me to the evidences of the witnesses placed on the record and it is sought to be urged that though the witnesses were narrating before the Court about Bhagelu Sah pouring acid on the person of Paras Mali, even though the doctor had not been examined at trial, the trial Court rushed to an erroneous conclusion and found him guilty under S. 324, IPC. Contentions were raised that though the doctor was not examined at trial, the injury report, of which Dr. R. B. Choudhary was shown to be the author, was placed on the record with the aid of the evidence of Gauri Shankar Prasad (P.W. 12) and, even those injury report if for collateral purposes, be taken into consideration, it would suggest that the doctor, who examined the injured, had noticed burn injury caused by boiled water. As for conviction of the appellants under S. 452, IPC, it is sought to be urged that even when there was no good evidence about the appellants having committed house trespass, they suffered conviction under S. 452, IPC and on this score my attention has been drawn to the definition of the house trespass as enjoined under Sec. 442, IPC, which runs as follows :- "Whoever commits criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building, used as a place of worship or as a place for the custody of property, is said to commit house trespass". Learned counsel for the State while resisting the submissions canvassed on behalf of the appellants submitted that the house inmates were assaulted also inside the house and, hence, the conviction recorded under S. 452, IPC was well founded. 4 Bira Mali (P.W. 7) was suggested to have suffered injuries by hard and blunt substance at the hands of Fulena Sah and that is also the case of the prosecution and on this score, there has been evidence of P.Ws. 7 and 10 only. 4 Bira Mali (P.W. 7) was suggested to have suffered injuries by hard and blunt substance at the hands of Fulena Sah and that is also the case of the prosecution and on this score, there has been evidence of P.Ws. 7 and 10 only. Though P.W. 9 Paras Mali would state about Bira Mali sustaining injuries on his person but author of the injury was not stated in the evidence. Though Dhruv Sao (P.W. 6) claimed to have witnessed the appellants making good their escape and the details of the incident having been made known to him by Paras Mali, he too does not state about Paras stating him about Fulena assaulting Bira Mali. Though the doctor was not examined at trial, if the injury report (Exhibit 2/1) was taken into consideration, the doctor had noticed only on abrasion on his left arm which was simple in nature. It is not in controversy that there was no explicit accusation against rest of the appellants about assaulting the individual house inmates. 5. Now coming to the evidence operating adverse to Bhagelu Sah, though there has been evidence of P.Ws. 3, 7, 9 and 10, if the injury report placed on the record was to be given credence that shows burn injury on his person caused by boiled water, and that apart, there has been counter version of none else but the prosecution witness Laxmi Sao (P.W. 8), who stated before the Court that Paras Mali sustained burn injury due to fall of boiled food substance on his person and there has been evidence of two defence witnesses also on this score which are in contrast with the assertion made by other prosecution witnesses. 6. Certain facts, however, deserve consideration. 6. Certain facts, however, deserve consideration. The finding recorded by the trial Court about Bhagelu Sah being guilty under S. 323, IPC, was based on two opposite premises, as while at one place, the learned Judge was inclined to make following observation - "These witnesses have also supported that accused Bhagelu Sah threw acid on the body of Paras Mali which caused burn injury to him", in succeeding paragraph, he was also inclined to make observation that - "It also transpires from the perusal of the record that the injuries on Paras Mali were caused by hot water and oil." The finding recorded by the trial Court on both the opposite premises did not sound well which runs contrary to each. The trial Court also appears to be obsessed with the objective finding of the Police Officer, as he found that the Investigating Officer found occurrence true during investigation of the case and as for presence of injuries, the learned Judge based his finding also on the premises that I.O. too had found injuries on the person of Paras Mali and Bira Mali. Even though Janki Mali, Laxmi Sah and other family inmates of the house were suggested to have suffered injuries on their persons, they were not examined at trial barring Laxmi (P.W. 8) who too did not make explicit accusation about injuries on his person at the hands of the particular appellant. Ramashray Lal (P.W. 2) and Razaque Mian (P.W. 5), who were independent witnesses, had turned volte face to the State lending no assurance to the prosecution allegation. Ram Swaroop Das (P.W. 4) had been tendered by the State, Jadolal Sah (P.W. 1), as has been urged at Bar, was not the ocular witness. Among those who claimed to be ocular witnesses. Both P.Ws. 3 and 7 were brother of Janki Mali (P.W. 10). Paras Mali (P.W. 9) was none else but the son of Janki Mali (P.W. 10). 7. As for the place of occurrence, the Investigating Officer had found it to be a sahan of the house of Janki Mali where while night meal was being cooked, the incident eventually happened. 3 and 7 were brother of Janki Mali (P.W. 10). Paras Mali (P.W. 9) was none else but the son of Janki Mali (P.W. 10). 7. As for the place of occurrence, the Investigating Officer had found it to be a sahan of the house of Janki Mali where while night meal was being cooked, the incident eventually happened. Barring Paras Mali (P.W. 9), none of the witnesses had been stating about the appellants assaulting the house-inmates inside the house and, if the definition of trespass, as enjoined under S.442, IPC was pressed into the service, there was no good evidence to find the appellants guilty under S. 452, IPC. This apart, the fact that Fulena Sah was the assailant of Bira Mali, had not been stated by any of the ocular witnesses. There was no good evidence about all the appellants being the assailants and, hence, the finding recorded by the trial Court under S. 323, IPC was also not sustainable in law. This fact also cannot be lost sight that the prosecution was launched against the appellant on 15-11-1980 and since then the appellant suffered ordeal of protracted prosecution for more than 22 years and taking into consideration the evidence and also the attending circumstances of the case, the finding recorded by the trial Court is set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. They also stand discharged of the liability of the bail bonds. This appeal is accordingly allowed. Appeal allowed.