Judgment Hari Shankar Prasad, J.- This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 20th February 1998 and order of sentence dated 23rd February 1998 passed in Sessions Trial No. 285 of 1997/223 of 1997 whereby and where under the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Chatra held the appellant guilty under Sections 307, 452 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and convicted and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for ten years under Section 307 IPC but no separate sentence was passed under Section 324 and 452 IPC. 2. Prosecution case in brief is that Sugia Devi, the informant, gave a fardbeyan on 9.9.1996 at about 10.30 AM at State hospital of Tapdwa before A.S.1. Dewaki Tanti of Tandwa PS in injured condition to the effect that on 8.9.1996 at about 9.00 PM in the night, she was sleeping on mat after taking meal and her son Raj Kumar Uraon had gone to watch Karma play. She was alone in the house. At about 11.00 PM in the night one unknown boy of the age of her son and appeared to be of her caste entered her house and in her sleeping condition without uttering anything gave several blows of knife on her neck, she started weeping and bite his finger of the hand with her teeth, then he left her and fled away. She got injured and on her hulla, neighbours assembled. Cause of occurrence is that her Devar Raghu Uraon always quarrels with her over property issue and he always wants share in the crops which she has grown in her field and always threatens to get her murdered. On this piece of fardbeyan, a case bearing Tandwa PS Case No. 56 of 1996 under Sections 307/34, 452 and 324 IPC was registered and I.O. after investigation submitted charge sheet. Cognizance in the case was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions where charges under aforesaid sections were framed and the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Chatra after recording evidence of witnesses-both oral and documentary-came to a finding and held the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. 3. Prosecution has examined altogether seven witnesses. PW1 is Jagdeo Uraon. He is father-in-law of the informant. PW2 is Bhuneshwar Uraon. He is Brother in-law of Sugia Devi. PW3 is Sugia Devi herself, who is the informant as well as injured. 3. Prosecution has examined altogether seven witnesses. PW1 is Jagdeo Uraon. He is father-in-law of the informant. PW2 is Bhuneshwar Uraon. He is Brother in-law of Sugia Devi. PW3 is Sugia Devi herself, who is the informant as well as injured. PW4 is Raj Kumar, who is son of Sugia Devi. PW5 is Dr. K.K. Lall, who has examined Sugia Devi. PW6 and PW7 are formal witnesses. 4. PW1 has deposed that on the alleged date of occurrence, he was sleeping after taking meal. At about 11.00 PM he heard cries of his daughter-in-law, Sugia Devi and went to her house and saw that appellant was fleeing away from the house of Sugia Devi (PW3). He went inside the house and saw injuries on the neck of Sugia Devi. She informed him that she has bitten the finger of appellant. He caught appellant and sent Sugia Devi along with Raj Kumar to Hazaribagh for treatment. He admits that there was complete darkness and houses are far away from the place of occurrence but his house is adjacent to the house of Sugia. He further admits that in the evening, he cannot see nor he can identify anyone. He also admits that he has not made such statement before the I.O. when he reached at the PO where he learnt from Sugia Devi and neighbours that one unknown person gave chura blows on Sugia Devi and fled away. 5. PW2 deposed that he was sleeping in his house. At about 11.30 PM in the night he heard cries of his Bhabhi and he went there where he saw injuries on the neck of his Bhabhi and his Bhabhi told him that she has bitten the finger of the accused. He admits that he did not take name of the appellant before the police. He says that the appellant was arrested three days after the occurrence. 6. PW3 is Sugia Devi. She deposes that she was sleeping in her house on mat after taking meal. At about 11.00 PM, a man entered the room and sat over her chest and gave indiscriminate blows over her neck, she raised alarm whereupon her father-in-law and her son ran for her rescue and while appellant was giving chura blows, she had bitten the finger of the appellant. She says that she had given name of the appellant before the police. She says that she had given name of the appellant before the police. She admits that there was complete darkness in the room and it was difficult to identify. 7. PW4 is Raj Kumar. He is son of PW3. He has also corroborated the evidence of his mother. 8. PW5 is doctor who examined the victim lady and found the following injuries on her person. 1. Incised wound 3 ½" x ½" x muscle deep, extending from middle and front of neck, cutting upwards towards right ears. 2. Incised wound 2 ½' x ½' x muscle deep extending from front of neck towards left side ears. 3. Incised wound 3 ½" x 1" x Muscle deep on the right side and back of the neck, below and behind the right ear pinna found incised would 1 ½" x ½%" skin deep on the frontal surface of left fore arm. 4. Incised wound ¼ " x ¼ " x outer epidermal layer of skin deep on the left side of cheek. According to the doctor, all the injuries were caused by sharp weapon. According to him Injuries no. 1 & 3 were caused by sharp cutting lethal weapon. Rest injuries were found to be simple in nature. 9. On this piece of evidence, learned court below held the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him. 10. While assailing the judgment, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that from the evidence of PW1, it is clear that he was unable to identify any person in the evening and the occurrence is of night and there was complete darkness in the room, hence he cannot be said to have seen this appellant running away from the house of PW3. Similar is the evidence of PW2, PW3, who is the informant herself, admits that there was complete darkness in the room and it was difficult to identify and, therefore, it is clear that she also did not identify the appellant. Similar is the evidence of PW2, PW3, who is the informant herself, admits that there was complete darkness in the room and it was difficult to identify and, therefore, it is clear that she also did not identify the appellant. It was also pointed out that occurrence has taken place in the night on 8.9.1996 and fardbeyan was recorded on 9.9.1996 at 10.30 AM and in the FIR, name of this appellant was not given and if PW1 and PW2 had seen and identified the appellant and also PW3 and PW4 had seen and identified the appellant then name of this appellant must have come in the FIR but name of the appellant was not given in the FIR. This goes to show that these witnesses had not seen the appellant running away from the place of occurrence. It was further pointed out that there was one clue that PW3 had bitten the finger of the hand of the appellant and on that very clue, this appellant was arrested by the police but injury in his finger has not been proved on examination by the doctor and, therefore, it cannot be said that this appellant sustained injury caused by PW3. It was also pointed out that since there were some injuries in the finger of the appellant, the witnesses named this appellant in the deposition which is after thought and by non-examination by the doctor, it cannot be said that this appellant is the person whose finger was bitten by the PW3 at the time of occurrence. 11. On perusal of records and after going through the submission of the parties, it appears that there is some weight in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant and I agree with the points raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that appellant is not named in the FIR and had he been identified by PW1 and PW2 while fleeing away from the house of PW3, name of the appellant must have come in the FIR. 12. In the result, this appeal is allowed and appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. He is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of the bail bonds.