Judgment Chandra Mohan Prasad, J. 1. The appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30th April, 1992 of the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Patna whereby the appellant Bijendra Chaudhary has been convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. And each of the remaining appellants, namely, Satendra Chaudhary, Tunnu Chaudhary and Munarik Gareri has been convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. The fard-beyan of the informant Fauzdar Chaudhary (P.W. 8) was recorded on 6th August, 1989 at 11:00 P.M. at Gaurichak Police Station wherein the informant alleged that that day (6.8.1989) at 8:00 P.M., all the four appellants armed with toddy tapper (Fasuli) came to his (informants) house and assaulted him with Fasuli causing injury on his neck, arm and cheek. On this statement of the informant, a formal F.l.R. was also registered and after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and the appellants were tried and have been convicted as above. 3. It appears that initially charge under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the l.P.C. was also framed against the appellants but they were acquitted of that charge and the learned trial court convicted the appellants for the offences, as stated above, 4. As many as 10 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. P.W. 8 Fauzdar Chaudhary is the informant and injured also. P.W. 4 Fulchand Chaudhary who is the father of the informant is an eye witness who is also injured, said to have received injuries while trying to save the informant during the assault. P.W. 1 Krishna Beldar, P.W. 2 Ram Chandra Paswan, P.W. 3 Parashuram Mahto, P.W. 6 Jagmatia Devi, mother of the informant are the other eye witnesses to the occurrence. P.W. 5 Surendra Chaudhary and P.W. 7 Sundari Devi have been declared hostile by the prosecution and there is nothing material in their evidence. P.W. 9 Dr. Upendra Singh had examined the injured and he proved the injury reports (Ext-2 and Ext-2/1) with respect to informant Fauzdar Chaudhary and P.W. 4 Fulchand Chaudhary. P.W. 10 Dudheshwar Chaudhary is the l.O. of the case. 5. P.W. 9 Dr. Upendra Singh had examined the injured and he proved the injury reports (Ext-2 and Ext-2/1) with respect to informant Fauzdar Chaudhary and P.W. 4 Fulchand Chaudhary. P.W. 10 Dudheshwar Chaudhary is the l.O. of the case. 5. The informant (P.W. 8) stated in his evidence that on the night of occurrence, at about 8:00 P.M. while he was sitting at his Darwaja alongwith his family members, the four appellants carrying Fasuli came there and appellant Bijendra Chaudhary assaulted him with Fasuli causing injury on his neck. Appellant Satendra Chaudhary caused injury on his cheek by means of Fasuli and appellant Tunnu Chaudhary also assaulted on his left eye with Fasuli causing injury there. He further deposed that when his father (P.W. 4) came to save him, appellant Munarik Gareri also assaulted his father (P.W. 4) with Fasuli causing cut injury on his leg and that appellant Tunnu Chaudhary also assaulted his father by means of Fasuli causing injury on his left knee. He has stated that on hulla villagers assembled and then the appellants fled away. He has stated to have given out his fard-beyan at the P.S. The signature on the fard-beyan is Ext-1. He further stated that he was sent to the Hospital. In Para-5 of cross-examination, he stated that regarding the same occurrence, appellant Satendra Chaudhary had afso filed an F.l.R. against him at the same P.S. P.W. 4, who is the father of the informant and another injured in the occurrence has also similarly deposed that all the four appellants armed with Fasuii came to his house and first of all they entered into an altercation with them and then they assaulted the informant causing injury on his neck, cheek and arm as well as nose. He further deposed that when he tried to intervene and save his son, appellant Tunnu assaulted and caused injury on his arm and leg. At Para-3 of his cross-examination he admitted that appellant Tunnu is his full brother and appellants Satendra Chaudhary and Bijendra Chaudhary are his nephews. Thus, accused and prosecution side both are close relation. At Para-8 he deposed that all the appellants had caused assault on him and his son by means of Fasuli. At para-10 of his cross-examination, he deposed that appellant Satendra had filed a criminal case on him and his grandson. Thus, accused and prosecution side both are close relation. At Para-8 he deposed that all the appellants had caused assault on him and his son by means of Fasuli. At para-10 of his cross-examination, he deposed that appellant Satendra had filed a criminal case on him and his grandson. Thus, both the sides though being close relations are on litigating terms. The remaining eye witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 6 who are either the family members of the informant or the neighbours have slated on similar lines that when they were at the P.O. or when they came to the P.O. on hulla they saw that all the four appellants, who were armed with Fasuli had caused injury to the informant and his father (P.W. 4) by means of the Fasuli. Fasuli is a sharp cutting weapon which has thin sharped and curved blade with a small wooden handle which is used in the village by Toddy-tappers in tapping of today. P.W. 1 at Para-5 has deposed that the night was a dark night. 6. The doctor who examined the injured, deposed that he examined Fauzdari Chaudhary, the informant and found the following injuries on him: (i) Lacerated wound 2"x1/4"xskin deep over left side of face below left eye on anterior aspect. (ii) Stitched wound 4"x1/4" long on left side of neck. (iii) Lacerated wound 1.1/2"x1/4" on introlateral aspect of left forearm. The doctor opined that the injury nos, (i) and (iii) were caused by hard blunt substance. About injury no. (i) he stated that the injury was already stitched from before and he reserved his opinion about the nature of the injuries. But in his evidence, he has not further stated about his any subsequent opinion given with respect to the injury no. (i). He proved the injury report Ext-2 with respect to the informant. The doctor further deposed that he examined P.W. 4 Fuichand Chaudhary and found the following injuries on him: (i) Lacerated wound 2.1/2"x1/2" into muscle deep in left elbow, interior side. (ii) Lacerated wound 2"x1/2" into muscle deep wound ankle in the lateral aspect of left foot 6" below tibia tuburosity. The doctor opined that both the injuries were simple in nature and caused by hard blunt substance. The injury report with respect to P.W. 4 was proved by Ext-2/1. In his cross-examination, the doctor further deposed that injury no. (ii) Lacerated wound 2"x1/2" into muscle deep wound ankle in the lateral aspect of left foot 6" below tibia tuburosity. The doctor opined that both the injuries were simple in nature and caused by hard blunt substance. The injury report with respect to P.W. 4 was proved by Ext-2/1. In his cross-examination, the doctor further deposed that injury no. (i) on the informant was stitched and that he could not say as to who had stitched the wound and where it was stitched. 7 During the hearing, the learned counsel for the appellants assailed the prosecution case on some infirmities he argued that in the light of those infirmities, the prosecution story is not fit to be believed. Firstly, the learned counsel argued that according to the case of the prosecution, all the appellants were armed with sharp cutting weapon, i.e. Fasuli and there was categorical allegation that the injuries were caused by means of Fasuli only. It is nowhere in the F.l.R. or the evidence of witnesses that any of the appellants was having any other weapon. The learned counsel referred to the injuries as found by the. Doctor and he pointed out that all the injuries found by the doctor, are injuries caused by hard blunt substance. No doubt, there was a stab injury on the informant but about that injury also, the doctor could not give any opinion as to what was the nature of injury and the weapon used as the injury was already stitched from before. 8. Thus, it was argued that all the injuries found are injuries caused by hard blunt substance. Referring to the prosecution case that the appellants had caused injuries to the informant and P.W. 4 by means of Fasuli, the learned counsel argued that the Fasuli will cause only sharp cutting injury i.e. incised injury but no such injury has been found and all the injuries found on the two injured are caused by hard blunt substance. So the manner of the occurrence, that the appellants assaulted the two injured by means of Fasuli, became highly doubtful. So the manner of the occurrence, that the appellants assaulted the two injured by means of Fasuli, became highly doubtful. l find substance in the submission of the learned counsel and find that in the light of the injuries found on the two injured, being not incised, and caused by sharp cutting weapon, the manner of occurrence that the four appellants assaulted the two injured by means of Fasuli is not fit to be believed. 9. The learned counsel pointed out some other infirmities also. He submitted that P.W. 1 at Para-5 stated that the night of occurrence was a dark night. The occurrence is said to have taken place at 8:00 P.M. in the night. In the whole evidence, no where any means or source of light has been explained. It was argued that in a dark night when the occurrence is said to have taken place, the identification of culprits is not possible, without any means of light. In fact, any means of light has not been explained. Therefore, the lack of any means of identification is also an important point, which goes against the prosecution case. 10. The appellants counsel referred to the evidence of P.W. 4 Para-10 that prior to the occurrence, appellant Satendra Chaudhary had filed a criminal case against him (P.W. 4) and his grandson and he argued that since the appellants had filed a case against P.W. 4, who is informants father, the informant and his family members were inimical to the appellants and that they implicated the appellants in this case falsely. No doubt, enmity cannot be considered in itself as sufficient to reject the evidence of such witnesses, but whatever is required is that in such cases the evidence of such witnesses is to be examined with great care and caution. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that in the evidence of the witnesses, assault on P.W. 4 at the hands of the appellants is alleged but in the fardbeyan the informant has not even whispered any kind of assault on P.W.4. Hence, it was argued that the prosecution has tried to add up and embellish its case with concocted story at the stage of evidence. 12. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances and the evidence as discussed above, l find that in the light of the above infirmities, the prosecution case becomes highly doubtful. Hence, it was argued that the prosecution has tried to add up and embellish its case with concocted story at the stage of evidence. 12. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances and the evidence as discussed above, l find that in the light of the above infirmities, the prosecution case becomes highly doubtful. Therefore, l find that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond the shadows of doubt. Accordingly, each of the appellants is held not guilty and he is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. 13. Consequently, the conviction and sentence as passed by the learned trial court are hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed.