JUDGMENT SADHAN KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order date 22.11.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Birbhum whereby he convicted the appellant no. 1 under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to suffer further R.I. for three months and the appellant no. 2 was convicted and sentenced under section 325 of the IPC, and sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and also to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer further R.I. for one month. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 3.5.1990 at about 8.00 a.m. one Sk. Hasib submitted a written complaint in the Mohammad Bazar P.S. stating therein that he is a resident of Alinagar within P.S. Mohammad Bazar. He has stated in his written complaint that on 3.5.1990 at about 7.00 a.m. one Sirajul Sk. was assaulting his cousin brother Kasem Sk. on the road on some allegations. Sk. Nasem, the brother of Kasem informed the incident to the house of the complainant. Hearing that the complainant, his uncle Erfan Sk. and his father Khosdil Sk. came to the pitch road and found Sirajul Sk. in front of the house of one Japan Sk. Erfan Sk. asked Sirajul Sk. as to why he assaulted that boy. Over this, altercation started amongst them. At that time Japan Sk., Kamal Sk. alias Arfe, Hiru, Gogal Sk., Arebul Sk. and Rahamat Sk. came in support of Sirajul with lathi, tangi etc. Kamal alias Arfe assaulted Erfan on his head by a tangi and as a result of that Erfan fell down on the road. Thereafter, Japan Sk. assaulted Erfan on his hand by a Ballam. Rahamat assaulted him by stone. Seeing that Jehera Bibi, Sifura Bibi and others including the complainant tried to resist. Then Hiru assaulted Jehera Bibi by lathi and Rahamat Sk. assaulted the complainant on his head by a Bhojali. All the accused persons threw stones and as a result of that Sifura sustained injury. At that time Anwar Sk. and many others came running to the spot and seeing that the accused persons fled away. Erfan Sk. was then taken to the P.S. and from there, he was sent to the hospital. All the accused persons threw stones and as a result of that Sifura sustained injury. At that time Anwar Sk. and many others came running to the spot and seeing that the accused persons fled away. Erfan Sk. was then taken to the P.S. and from there, he was sent to the hospital. The complainant and others were also treated in the hospital. Over this complainant, Mohammad Bazar P.S. Case No. 32 of 1990, date 3.5.1990 was started against the accused persons. The case was investigated. During investigation Erfan Sk. died in the Suri Hospital. After completion of the investigation charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons. Charges were framed against the accused persons under sections 147/302 read with section 149 of the IPC. A separate charge under section 323 IPC was framed against Hiru Sk. During trial accused Sirajul Sk. expired. The charges were read over and explained to the accused persons who pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. The defence case, as it transpires from the trend of cross-examination as well as from the statements as made by the accused persons under section 313 Cr. P.C, is that of denial and also that there was a land dispute between Khosdil, Ramjan and the deceased Erfan Sk. and as a result of land dispute Erfan sustained injuries and ultimately he expired. It is the specific defence case that in order to save Khosdil and Ramjan this case has been falsely instituted against the present accused persons shielding the real culprits. They have claimed that no such incident took place on 3.5.1990. The learned Additional Sessions Judge considered the entire evidence on record as well as the statements made by the defence and the argument submitted by both the sides and thereafter he was of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges against the present petitioner and so he convicted them accordingly and as the charges were not proved against the rest of the accused persons, so the learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit them. The fact that is to be considered so far as the present appeal is concerned, is whether the judgment and order of conviction as passed by the learned Sessions Judge is justified or not. 3. The fact that is to be considered so far as the present appeal is concerned, is whether the judgment and order of conviction as passed by the learned Sessions Judge is justified or not. 3. We have already pointed out the fact of the case which resulted in the submission of the charge sheet against the accused persons. We have also pointed out that in order to substantiate the prosecution case, the prosecution has led evidence. In a criminal case of this nature entire onus lies on the prosecution to prove the charge against the accused persons beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt. We have already pointed out that the prosecution has adduced evidence to prove the charges against the accused persons and as such we are of opinion that before coming to a final decision so far as the present appeal is concerned, we are to look into the evidence that has been adduced by the prosecution so far as the present case is concerned. It appears from the record that the prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses. The statements of these witnesses are very vital for the purpose of this case and as such we prefer to look into the statements made by those witnesses and to scan the same. 4. P.W.1 is Sk. Hasim. He is the de facto complainant of this case. In his examination-in-chief he has clearly supported the prosecution case. He has categorically stated that accused Kamal gave blow with a tangi on the head of Erfan. He has also stated that accused Rahamat assaulted Erfan with stone on his chest. This witness has also stated that accused Rahamat Sk. gave a blow with a Bhojali on his head. He has also gave description of the part taken by the other accused persons in the incident. We get from the evidence of this witness that the two other injured persons viz. Jehera Bibi and Sifura Bibi died during the trial. In his cross-examination he stated that Erfan was brought to the Patel Nagar Public Health Centre where he was treated and at that time the names of the assailants of Erfan were narrated to the Medical Officer. According to this witness he was admitted at Patel Nagar Hospital and Erfan was taken to Suri Hospital by the other persons. In his cross-examination he stated that Erfan was brought to the Patel Nagar Public Health Centre where he was treated and at that time the names of the assailants of Erfan were narrated to the Medical Officer. According to this witness he was admitted at Patel Nagar Hospital and Erfan was taken to Suri Hospital by the other persons. A suggestion has been given to this witness by the defence to the effect that there was a land dispute between Khosdil, Ramjan and Erfan and over that dispute Erfan sustained injuries. Of course this suggestion was clearly denied by this witness. He also denied the defence suggestion that no such incident took place in the manner on the date and place which he stated. He has also denied that in order to save his father and uncle Ramjan this case has been falsely instituted. 5. P.W.2 is Kasem Sk. He has stated in his evidence that the deceased Erfan Sk. was his uncle. According to him on 3.5.1990 there were a quarrel in between him and the accused Sirajul, since deceased. He also stated that Sirajul assaulted him at that time and for that the P.W.1, gave information to his house and as a result of that his father Ramjan Sk. and his uncle Khosdil and Erfan came to the spot and an altercation took place. Suddenly all the accused persons took the side of Sirajul and accused Kamal gave blow with a tangi on the head of Erfan. Other accused persons also took part in the assault and he has categorically stated that Rahamat Sk. assaulted Erfan with lathi and also by stone. He also stated that his Didima Jehera and his mother Sifura were also assaulted. In his cross-examination on this witness stated that Kurban Sk. father-in-law of Erfan took him from the P.O. to Sotsal in injured condition where from he was taken to police station and from there they were referred to the hospital. This witness has denied the defence suggestion that in order to save his father and uncle the present case has been falsely instituted. 6. P.W.3 is Kurban Sk. He is the father-in-law of the deceased Erfan Sk. According to him, his house is situated at a distance of ½ K.M. from the house of Erfan. This witness has denied the defence suggestion that in order to save his father and uncle the present case has been falsely instituted. 6. P.W.3 is Kurban Sk. He is the father-in-law of the deceased Erfan Sk. According to him, his house is situated at a distance of ½ K.M. from the house of Erfan. He has stated that on the date of incident he came to know from the villagers about the incident and when he reached the P.O. he found that his son-in-law Erfan was lying injured on the ground. This witness has stated that he came to know from his son-in-law that he sustained injury caused by Sirajul, Arpha Molla, Japan, Rahamat, Arebul Sk., Gogal Sk. He took Erfan from the P.O. to Sotsal and then to Mohammad Bazar P.S. From there Erfan was taken to Patel Nagar Public Health Centre wherefrom he was referred to Suri Hospital. According to him Erfan died at Suri Hospital. 7. P.W.4 is S.I. Brojogopal Bhattacharya. He conducted inquest in respect to the dead body of the deceased Erfan. 8. P.W.5 is Santosh Chowdhury. He identified the dead body before the postmortem Doctor. 9. P.W.6 is Doctor Tridibeshwar Mondal. According to this Doctor on the relevant day he was posted in the Mohammad Bazar Public Health Centre when he examined one Erfan Sk. and found cut injuries 4" in size and ½" in depth the left parietal region of the scalp. He also noticed one inch cut injury with bleeding, ½" in depth over right deltoid region and also tenderness all over the chest. According to this Doctor those injuries could be caused by Lathi, Ballam and Tangi. He has stated that the patient party informed him that Japan Sk. and Hiru Sk. assaulted the injured by tangi. He also stated that he shifted the patient to Suri Sadar Hospital. 10. P.W.7 is Doctor S. Nath. He held the post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. In his evidence he has stated that he also noticed injuries on the head and other parts of the body of the deceased which according to him were the cause of the death of the deceased. This Doctor opined that those injuries could be caused by lathi, tangi and stones. 11. P.W.8 is S.I. Chandan Mukherjee. He is the Investigating Officer of this case. This Doctor opined that those injuries could be caused by lathi, tangi and stones. 11. P.W.8 is S.I. Chandan Mukherjee. He is the Investigating Officer of this case. This witness has denied the defence suggestion that he received the written complaint on 4.5.1990 at 11.00 a.m. He has admitted that he did not examine the Medical Officer who treated the deceased at Mohammad Bazar P.H.C. and at Suri Sadar Hospital. He also has admitted that he did not collect the bed head ticket from Suri Hospital. He has also categorically admitted that he did not refer any person by name Sk. Hasim to the P.H.C. He could not say during cross-examination as to whether Sk. Hasim was admitted in the hospital or not. According to this witness the P.W.2 Kasem stated before him that when a large number of people came to the place of occurrence, the accused persons fled away. 12. We have discussed the evidence that has been adduced in this case by the prosecution to prove the charge against the accused/appellants. It appears that learned Court below convicted accused Kamal Sk. alias Arfe Molla under section 302 IPC, and he also convicted accused Rahamat Sk. under section 325 IPC. It appears that it is the case of the prosecution that the incident took place on 3.5.1990 at about 7.00 a.m. We have already pointed out that the prosecution altogether has examined eight witnesses to prove the charges against the accused persons. So far as the present case is concerned, it appears that practically there are two eye-witnesses viz. P.W.1 Sk. Hasim and P.W.2 Kasem Sk. If we look into the evidence of these two witnesses then it will appear that there are lot of contradictions in their statements. P.W.1 Sk. Hasim in his evidence has stated that he lodged the F.I.R. on the very day of the incident in the P.S. The F.I.R. also shows that it was lodged on 3.5.1990 i.e. the alleged date of incident. But in his cross-examination this witness has stated that on the next day he was discharged from the hospital and on that day at about 11.00 a.m. when police came to Sotsal village, in presence of the police the F.I.R. was written. His statement in this respect runs as follows:- "Thereafter, I took discharge from the hospital at 5.00 a.m. on the next date of incident and went my home. His statement in this respect runs as follows:- "Thereafter, I took discharge from the hospital at 5.00 a.m. on the next date of incident and went my home. On that very day at 11.00 a.m. police came to Sotsal village. At that time in presence of police the F.I.R. was written." So this statement of the P.W.1 clearly shows that the F.I.R. was written on 4.5.1990 and not on 3.5.1990 as claimed by the prosecution. On the contrary if we look into the evidence of the P.W.2 Kasem Sk. then it will appear that he has claimed that on that very day injured Erphan was taken to the P.S. and reported the incident which was reduced in writing. So there is clear contradiction in between statements of these two eye-witnesses regarding the actual date of filing of the F.I.R. and we cannot ignore it as minor discrepancy. This fact has certainly raised a suspicion in the mind of the Court regarding the genuineness of the statements as made by the P.W.1 and P.W.2. 13. Secondly, the P.W.1 in his evidence has claimed that Erphan was assaulted by accused Japan, who has been acquitted in this case, with a spear on his right arm. But P.W.2 Kasem Sk. did not say anything about this injury. From the evidence of the Doctor we also do not find any such injury on the body of Erphan. This shows either of the P.W.1 or P.W.2 has delibarately made false statement for reasons best known to them. 14. Thirdly, if we look into the evidence of the P.W.1 Sk. Hasim then it will appear that he claimed that accused Rahamat Sk. assaulted him by a Bhojali on his head. But P.W.2 Kasem Sk. did not state anything in this respect that accused Rahamat Sk. assaulted P.W.1 by a Bhojali. This P.W.1 has stated that due to that injury he was admitted in the hospital and received treatment. But no evidence whatsoever has been produced by the prosecution in order to show that this P.W.1 also sustained severe injury on his head being assaulted by Rahamat by a Bhojali. This fact also certainly raises a serious doubt in the mind of this Court regarding the truthfulness of the statement as made by the P.W.1 so far as this case is concerned. 15. This fact also certainly raises a serious doubt in the mind of this Court regarding the truthfulness of the statement as made by the P.W.1 so far as this case is concerned. 15. Fourthly, this P.W.1 has admitted in his evidence by saying the villagers rushed to the P.O. Then the accused persons fled away. So from this statement it is clear that immediately after the occurrence the villagers came to the spot. But if we look into the evidence of the P.W.2 then it will appear that he altogether denied that he stated to the police that a large number of people came to the P.O. So there is material contradiction in between the statements of these two witnesses. But if we look into the evidence of the Investigating Officer then it will appear that he categorically admitted that the P.W.2 Kasem Sk. stated before him that immediately after the incident large number of people came to the P.O. From this, it is very much clear that the P.W.2 has made false statement delibarately against the accused persons. If we accept the evidence of the P.W.1 Sk. Hasim that many villagers came to the locality immediately after the incident then also it will go against the prosecution. There is no doubt that it is most natural that after such an alleged incident the villagers will assemble in the spot. If, that is the position, then those villagers are the most important witnesses for the purpose of this case. It is those villagers who could actually lend support to the prosecution case that there was such an incident as alleged. But strangely, for reasons best known to the Investigating Officer, none of those villagers were examined in connection with this case. There is no explanation whatsoever. It is unbelievable that the I.O. could not make any contact with the villagers who allegedly reached the P.O. immediately after the occurrence. This is a serious laches on the part of the prosecution and we are not in a position to ignore the same and to our mind this fact has certainly struck at the very root of the prosecution case. 16. Fifthly, prosecution has examined the P.W.3 Kurban Sk. who is the father-in-law of the deceased Erphan. According to this witness, Erphan told him about the names of the assailants. 16. Fifthly, prosecution has examined the P.W.3 Kurban Sk. who is the father-in-law of the deceased Erphan. According to this witness, Erphan told him about the names of the assailants. And he has claimed that Erphan was at that time very much conscious. But if we look into the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit-2, then it will appear that this witness was present at the time of the inquest and in recognition of that he put his L.T.I. He could not deny this fact in this fact in this cross-examination. The Police Officer who held the inquest stated that on preliminary enquiry he could not ascertain that Sk. Sirajul, Sk. Japan, Sk. Rahamat, Sk. Nurai and many others had trouble on that day with Erphan and they assaulted him on his head and other parts of the body. So most interesting thing is this that even during inquest the names of the appellant no.1 Kalam Sk. who is according to the prosecution case, is the main culprit, was not disclosed. So naturally a strong suspicion arises in our mind that the name of the appellant no.1 was subsequently added. The evidence of this P.W.3 is also far from satisfactory. He has admitted in his cross-examination that he was not examined by the police and he did not state anything to police which he deposed before the Court during trial. He has admitted that when he reached the P.O. he found his son-in-law lying injured and at that time there was some persons present there. But surprisingly enough this witness admitted in the cross-examination by saying I had no talk with anybody else regarding the incident. This to our mind appears to be most unnatural. When such an incident took place it was most likely that P.W.3 would enquire about the matter from the persons present on the spot. This witness has further stated that his son-in-law Erphan Sk. informed him that these two appellants along with others actually caused the injury to Erphan. But if we look into the evidence of the P.W.6 Doctor Tridibeshwar Mondal then it will appear that in the injury report, which has been marked as Exhibit-4, he noted in the said injury report that the assault on the injured was caused by Sk. Japan and Sk. Hiru by tangi as per statement. But if we look into the evidence of the P.W.6 Doctor Tridibeshwar Mondal then it will appear that in the injury report, which has been marked as Exhibit-4, he noted in the said injury report that the assault on the injured was caused by Sk. Japan and Sk. Hiru by tangi as per statement. Normally it is expected that this information was given to the Doctor by the injured himself when he was in conscious stage and was brought to the P.H.C. by a bus. But the Doctor in his evidence has stated that he was informed about the names of the assailants by the patient party. Whatever, it may be, the fact remains that the names of these two appellants were not taken before the Doctor at the time of his treatment in the Public Health Centre. This fact also goes against the prosecution case and we find substance in the argument of the learned defence Advocate that the names of these two appellants were subsequently added. We have already pointed out that the prosecution case is that the appellant no.1, injured Erphan on his head by a tangi. Naturally in such a case it is expected that there would be incised wound on the head of the deceased. But from the evidence of the Doctor it appears that there was no incised injury on the body of the deceased. This Doctor has admitted in cross-examination by saying in case of assault by sharp cutting weapon like tangi there will be clean cut injury which is called in medical term incised. There was no clean cut injury. Had there been any clean cut injury it would have been noted in the injury report. In case of assault by sharp cutting weapon like tangi there will be incised injury. So the nature of the injury suggests that the deceased was not injured by a tangi as suggested by the prosecution. The Doctor has also opined that the injuries found on the body of Erphan would be caused by blunt weapon such as lathi. True it is that he also did not rule out the possibility of causing those injuries by sharp cutting weapons like Ballam and Tangi. However, the statements as made by the Doctor as quoted above clearly rules out the possibility of causing the injury by tangi in the manner as suggested by the prosecution. True it is that he also did not rule out the possibility of causing those injuries by sharp cutting weapons like Ballam and Tangi. However, the statements as made by the Doctor as quoted above clearly rules out the possibility of causing the injury by tangi in the manner as suggested by the prosecution. This fact also has given a serious blow to the prosecution case. It further appears from the statement of this Doctor that whenever a patient was brought by reference by police there must be note of the reference of the case. But in the instant case there was no such reference by the concerned police station. From the evidence of the P.W.1 and P.W.2 it appears that they have claimed that Erphan was taken to the Mohammad Bazar P.S. and from there he was referred to the Mohammad Bazar P.H.C. So when there was no reference by the police to the hospital, so it is difficult to accept the claim of the P.W.1 & P.W.2 that Erphan was referred to the hospital by the police. Only logical conclusion can be drawn to the effect that Erphan was taken directly to the P.H.C. and the claim of the P.W.1 & P.W.2 to the effect that he was taken there via the police station is nothing but a falsehood. Moreover, if we look into the evidence of the I.O. then it will appear that if one person is to come to the Mohammad Bazar P.S. from Alinagar village, where the incident took place, one is to cross Mohammad Bazar P.H.C, first. So it is expected that Erphan would be taken to the P.H.C. first then to take him to the P.S. That is the normal human conduct. For this we rely on the decision reported in 2002 CRI Law Journal page 1844. This conduct appears very much suspicious to our mind and we are unable to accept the claim of the witness that Erphan was taken to the P.S. first and from there to the P.H.C. This shows that the P.W.1 & P.W.2 was bent upon making false statements for the purpose of this case. 17. So it appears from our discussion above, that there are lots of discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The evidence of the P.W.1 & P.W.2, whom the prosecution has claimed to be the eye-witnesses are far from satisfactory. 17. So it appears from our discussion above, that there are lots of discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The evidence of the P.W.1 & P.W.2, whom the prosecution has claimed to be the eye-witnesses are far from satisfactory. Their evidence does not tally with the evidence as adduced by the Doctor. There is also room for doubt regarding the genuineness of the claim of the P.W.2 that on the very date of incident the matter was reported in the P.S. The defence has suggested that deceased Erphan was not injured in the manner and place as suggested by the prosecution. Of course the defence has failed to adduce any evidence in support of this contention. But simply for that reason, it cannot be said that the prosecution case has been established. The prosecution case is to stand on its own leg. It cannot take advantage of any inconsistencies in the suggestion given by the defence during trial. We have already pointed out that there are so many discrepancies in the statements made by the PWs. The only person who could prove the matter beyond doubt was the Investigating Officer. An Investigating Officer is supposed to be an independent person. It is expected that he would investigate the case impartially without any bias to either of the party. But we are compelled to say that the Investigating Officer, who has been examined as P.W.8, has totally failed in his duty to conduct an impartial investigation as is expected from him. He has failed to collect the Bed Head Ticket from Suri Sadar Hospital and also he did not take any step for collecting the medical papers in respect of the alleged claim of sustaining injury by the P.W.2. No explanation has been given by the I.O. in this respect. We have already pointed out that there is doubt regarding the actual date of incident as alleged by the P.W.1 & P.W.2. This doubt could have been removed by the I.O. had he collected medical papers from the Mohammad Bazar P.H.C. as well as from Suri Sadar Hospital. He has also admitted that although there is a statement in the F.I.R. that the injured Sk. Erphan was taken to P.S. first and then referred Mohammad Bazar P.S. still he could not find any G.D. entry to that effect. Although the P.W.2 Sk. He has also admitted that although there is a statement in the F.I.R. that the injured Sk. Erphan was taken to P.S. first and then referred Mohammad Bazar P.S. still he could not find any G.D. entry to that effect. Although the P.W.2 Sk. Hasim claimed that he was referred to the Mohammad Bazar P.H.C, by the police, still this I.O. has claimed that he did not refer any such person to the said hospital. It is most surprising that the I.O. did not examine the important witnesses like Khosdil, Ramjan and wife of the deceased. No explanation whatsoever has been given in this respect. He has further admitted that P.W.2 stated before him that a large number of people came to the P.O. and seeing that the accused persons fled away. So it was most natural for this I.O. to examine some of those villagers. Had he examined those persons, then we could get a clear picture as to whether any such incident took place on that date and place and whether the present accused persons were involved in it or not. It is surprising that this Investigating Officer simply preferred to examine the P.W.1, P.W.2 & P.W.3 as well as some of the relatives of the deceased, who are now dead, in order to substantiate charge against the accused persons. It is well settled that witnesses essential to the unfolding of the narrative on which the prosecution is based must be examined. When such important witnesses for the unfolding of the prosecution case are kept back without giving any explanation, the non-examination of these witnesses acquires a special significance in view of the discrepancies in the statements given by the witnesses in Court. Prosecution is bound to produce the witnesses who are essential for unfolding of the prosecution case and for this we rely on the decision reported in AIR 1976 Supreme Court at Page 2423 and AIR 1976 Supreme Court at page 2304. But that does not mean that non-examination of some witnesses will totally go against the prosecution case. Before an adverse inference against the prosecution can be drawn it must be proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the witnesses who have been withheld are very much material for the purpose of proving the case. But that does not mean that non-examination of some witnesses will totally go against the prosecution case. Before an adverse inference against the prosecution can be drawn it must be proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the witnesses who have been withheld are very much material for the purpose of proving the case. So far as the present case is concerned it must be said that the I.O. has failed to examine sufficient number of material witnesses. It is clear that the Investigating Officer failed to examine the material witnesses or to collect the material documents which would have proved the prosecution case beyond doubt. Non-examination or non-production of those documents raises a strong doubt in our mind regarding the genuineness of the prosecution case and as such we have got no other alternative but to draw an adverse presumption against the prosecution. We are not unmindful of the principle that due to laches of the Investigating Officer the prosecution case should not suffer. But that principle, in our humble opinion, will apply if the other materials as produced by the prosecution are reliable. We have already pointed out that the evidence as adduced by the prosecution is far from satisfactory and there is room for doubt regarding its genuineness. In addition to that, we have also pointed out that the evidence of the Investigating Officer also has failed to inspire our confidence. Under such circumstances, we are compelled to draw an adverse presumption against the prosecution case. For this reason we are unable to agree with the finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and we are of opinion that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not justified in holding the accused persons guilty of the offence charged with. 18. Much has been argued by the defence to the effect that the Doctor in his injury report has stated that the incident took place on 2.5.1990 and not 3.5.1990 as alleged by the prosecution. In his evidence also it appears that this Doctor stated that he examined the injured on 2.5.1990. Due to this the learned Advocate for the defence argued that this fact actually has given a shattering blow to the prosecution as no such incident took place on 3.5.1990. In his evidence also it appears that this Doctor stated that he examined the injured on 2.5.1990. Due to this the learned Advocate for the defence argued that this fact actually has given a shattering blow to the prosecution as no such incident took place on 3.5.1990. If we look into the injury report which has been marked as exhibit-4, then it will appear that below the signature of the Doctor the date has been given as 2.5.1990. But at the same time if we look into the said exhibit then it will appear that the date and time of the incident and the date and time of the examination was noted as 2.5.1990 and there is clear interpolation in it. Even in the deposition sheet also there is interpolation to that effect and it is difficult to understand as to what actually was written on it. Much has been argued by both the sides on this point and as aspirations have been made by both the sides against each other. We are not going to look into that controversy. It is unfortunate that such an interpolation has been taken place in the documents which were kept in the custody of the Court. But at the same time when we have already pointed out that there is room for doubt regarding the genuineness of the prosecution case, so we prefer not to give a decision in this respect as to whether there was any interpolation in mentioning the date or not. 19. Be that as it may, from our above discussion, we are of opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused persons beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt and to our mind the learned Court below was not at all justified in holding the accused persons guilty and convicting them accordingly. As the prosecution has failed to prove the charge beyond any doubt, so the accused persons are entitled to get the benefit of doubt, so the accused persons are entitled to get the benefit of doubt and for that reason they are liable to be acquitted. Considering all these things, we are of opinion that the accused persons namely, Kamal Sk. alias Arfe and Rahamat Sk. are found not guilty and accordingly they are acquitted. The order of conviction, as passed by the learned Court below is set aside. The appeal succeeds. Considering all these things, we are of opinion that the accused persons namely, Kamal Sk. alias Arfe and Rahamat Sk. are found not guilty and accordingly they are acquitted. The order of conviction, as passed by the learned Court below is set aside. The appeal succeeds. The accused persons, if are in custody, be released at once. Send a copy of this judgment to the learned Court below along with the L.C.R. immediately. I agree. Appeal succeeds.